Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WARWICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Dr. Wladislaw Dering

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what steps he is proposing to take with regard to the applications for the extradition of Dr. Wladislaw Dering as an alleged war criminal.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Dr. Wladislaw Dering was listed as a war criminal on three occasions by the United Nations War Crimes Commission; that charges against him have been preferred by the Governments of Czechoslovakia, France and Poland; and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against Dr. Dering that, as an assistant Medical Officer in charge of the Oswiecim concentration camp, he was responsible for the segregation and collection of Allied personnel for destruction in the gas chambers, and that in addition he participated in experiments on living human beings; and whether, in view of all these facts, he will, without further delay, arrange for the deportation of this person so that he can stand his trial as a war criminal.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It has been found requisite to make some further inquiries which will take a little time to complete.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the very serious charges that have been made against Dr. Dering, including charges of having performed sterilisation and other experimental operations on a large scale, and in view of the fact that he has already been detained without trial in this country for a very long time, is it not eminently desirable that this matter should be judicially investigated without further delay?

Mr. Ede: That judicial investigation, as far as it concerns the establishment of a prima facie case, is going on.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary informed the Polish Government on 27th April of this year that we were satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the man would be deported forthwith, can the Home Secretary say what are the reasons for a further investigation being required?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Some further rebutting evidence was submitted.

Colonel Tassoev

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long Colonel Tassoev was kept at Hammersmith police station; did he ask at the police station to see the Soviet Consul or state who he was; and was he taken to any other place from the police station before leaving the country.

Mr. Ede: Colonel Tassoev was at Hammersmith police station from 6th May to 20th May, when he was returned to the Soviet authorities. During that period, he was not taken from the police station to any other place. The police knew who he was. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave last Thursday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Piratin: Is the Home Secretary aware that the information which he has now given is at variance with what we have been told before, when he told us


that this man was temporarily detained at Hammersmith police station, and that now he says he was there for 14 days? May I ask him why could not the Soviet authorities in this country have been informed that he was here and would be transferred to them?

Mr. Ede: This man came from abroad, and was returned to the place abroad from which he came.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, last Thursday, he gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that he would get into touch with the Foreign Secretary to consider the desirability of publishing a connected statement about this affair? May I ask him if the Foreign Secretary has been consulted, and who we are to recommend for the Nobel Prize for fairy stories—the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary?

Mr. Ede: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend. There are no fairy tales about this, and this man is no fairy.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the Foreign Secretary taken into consideration the suggestion which I made to him last Thursday? Is he aware of the very prejudicial effect which the mythical fairy stories concerning this episode have had in Soviet circles and the Red Army, and will he see that a connected account is widely published?

Mr. Ede: I am carrying out the promise which I gave in answer to the hon. Gentleman last week.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that many persons in this country who are opposed to this individual still think that the Government story does not ring very well in the country, and is it not time that he made up a connected story to tell the country?

Mr. Ede: We are not endeavouring to make up a connected story. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that the full facts shall be made known, but I did not come into the picture until 6th May.

Mr. Piratin: Will the Home Secretary explain why the Soviet Embassy in this country could not be informed that a Soviet military citizen had been incarcerated for 14 days in a police station without a charge being made against him?

Mr. Ede: When aliens are landed in the circumstances in which this man was landed, it is not customary to inform the Embassy or Legation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR (SENTENCE)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the remission of the sentence of three years' Borstal training passed on Peter Green, a conscientious objector, at Chelmsford Quarter Sessions, in view of Mr. Green's previous character and the special circumstances.

Mr. Ede: Green has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence and has been released on bail. As the case is still before the courts it would be improper for me to comment on it.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this case has caused considerable public concern, and would he say whether there is any precedent for sending a young man of otherwise first-class character to Borstal for an alleged offence of this kind?

Mr. Ede: I should have thought that that was just the kind of comment I ought not to make while the case is sub judice.

Mr. McGovern: Outside the trial of the case, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the magistrate who tried this man did not show a rather vicious trend of mind?

Mr. Speaker: The case is sub judice, and these questions are undesirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 545), will be revised.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has yet decided to amend the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations so that disciplinary cases and appeals shall not be


proceeded with and concluded in the absence of the accused if he is in legal custody;
(2) whether he has yet decided that a member of a fire brigade charged with an offence under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations shall be entitled to be represented by a person other than a member of the fire brigade without the leave of the fire authority.

Mr. Ede: In accordance with the assurances given during the Debate on the Discipline Regulations on 7th April I brought this matter to the notice of the National Joint Council. I have now had a report from the Council recommending that revision of the regulations should be deferred until more experience has been gained of the working of the regulations. I am sure this is the wiser course but I shall keep the operation of the regulations under careful review.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Under-Secretary gave an unqualified assurance that these regulations would be revised at an early date in view of the objections made in this House?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have very carefully considered what my hon. Friend said, and the course which has been taken has carried out the pledge that he gave.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No.

Mr. Ede: I have here the concluding words of my hon. Friend's statement. I am as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter. I am keeping under review the specific application of the regulations on the point to which they drew attention. I hope soon to get a recommendation from the Council.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during that Debate I asked the Under-Secretary for an assurance that if the regulations remained in force there should be an undertaking that they would be revised at an early date, and he replied that that was precisely the position as understood by the Secretary of State? Do I understand that that revision will not take place at an early date?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It will take place as soon as I get a recommendation from the

Council. May I say that I share the surprise of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Council itself did not attach the same importance as he attaches to the particular point in the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAR PARK ATTENDANTS, LONDON (LICENCES)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the conditions on which licences are issued by the police to car park attendants in the London area.

Mr. Ede: These attendants are licensed by the Commissioner as street messengers under Section 19 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, to supervise car parks and secure observance of the Parking Places Regulations; licences are renewable annually and liable to revocation for misconduct or other sufficient reason. They receive no pay, but may accept gratuities from car drivers.

Captain Crowder: Can the Home Secretary say if these attendants are under any obligation to the car owners regarding theft from or damage to the cars, and would he consider allowing some fixed charge to be made?

Mr. Ede: Their duties are laid down in a document which is handed to them when they get their licences; among those duties is that of seeing that the contents of the cars are protected from theft, and that cars while in the parks are properly looked after. I will consider the last point in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (JACKDAWS)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the considerable scale on which jackdaws are being kept as pets in Ipswich and elsewhere; that they are sold for this purpose at a catsmeat price; and whether, as fledglings are being taken from the nest by schoolboys, he will take steps to ensure that the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Act are enforced throughout the country.

Mr. Ede: I am informed that some 50 school-children in Ipswich have been concerned in taking and selling among themselves jackdaws for pets. Two boys were prosecuted and severely reprimanded. In view of the action of the R.S.P.C.A. and the police, and of the publicity given in the locality to the proceedings, I see no need for further action on my part.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the magistrates in Ipswich have shown a great deal of common sense and humanity in this matter, in so far as they have imposed fines on these boys who have maltreated these particular birds, and will he offer encouragement to other benches of magistrates to follow their excellent example?

Mr. Ede: I understand that I am prevented from commenting on the actions of magistrates.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any information about the number of jackdaws kept in Bedford?

Mr. Ede: The last prisoner in Bedford of whom I have any information was John Bunyan.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Home Secretary pass on to Ipswich the lines from the poet:
Awa', ye thochtless, murdering gang.
That steal the nestlings ere they flee"?

Mr. Ede: One of the difficulties of dealing with the case is that liberated jackdaws will return to the place of their confinement.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES' CLERK, BARMOUTH (APPOINTMENT)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered a resolution from the Standing Joint Police Committee of Merionethshire respecting the confirmation of the appointment of a Clerk to the Justices of Barmouth Division; and what action he has taken thereon.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Before confirming the appointment of this Clerk to Justices, I took into consideration the representations made by the Standing Joint Committee, as I was required to do by Section

34 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, but I could find nothing in those representations to justify me in withholding my consent to the appointment.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it a fact that there were three or four applications for this job; that three of the applicants were ex-Service men and one a conscientious objector; that the ex-Service men lived in the neighbourhood and had qualifications of a kind considered suitable; that the conscientious objector did not, and that the Committee recommended that the conscientious objector should not be appointed, but that, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman confirmed the appointment?

Mr. Ede: There were three ex-Service men applicants. This applicant did not live in the county, but just across the border. I understand that the other applicants did live within the county. Being a conscientious objector is no bar to appointments of this kind.

Sir I. Fraser: Might not the ex-Service men have been given a preference in this case?

Mr. Ede: I have to consider the qualifications of the applicants. The applicant was fully qualified and was recommended by the bench of magistrates concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

House Sales (Pre-war Values)

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Health if he will frame regulations or take other steps to make it compulsory for the vendor of a house built previously to 1939 to announce its 1938 value to the purchaser.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have no power to make such regulations.

Mr. Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he proposes to take to deal with the inflated prices of houses for sale at present, and has he not received representations on this subject from national bodies?

Mr. Bevan: This matter has been raised from time to time. It has been generally accepted that it would be almost impossible to frame laws which would prevent


this mischief, and it is not wise to frame laws which can be disregarded by citizens. I believe that housing prices are now beginning to fall.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the worst abuses in this matter might be obviated if the seller had to register the price last paid with the local authority?

Mr. Bevan: I have no power to enforce that.

Sir William Darling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the worst abuses would be obviated by building more houses?

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely what is happening.

Building Costs

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Health why the average cost of building the typical three-bedroom house, which was given by him as £980 on 5th March, 1946, is no longer available.

Mr. Bevan: The £980 was a tender price. No reliable average figures of final cost are yet available.

Commander Galbraith: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is quite unable at this time to state the price of houses?

Mr. Bevan: The price of the tender is not always the price which the house eventually costs, because there are almost invariably p.c. items which go up in price, and the final costs are invariably higher. I have got some final costs in mind, but I am not yet able to give a reliable figure for the country as a whole.

Requisitioning Powers

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether, without requiring applications from individual local authorities, he will delegate powers generally to all local authorities to requisition the unoccupied portions of residential property offered for sale with part-vacant possession.

Mr. Bevan: I feel unable to accept this suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has expressed his willingness to consider applications from

local authorities for these powers? Why impose that condition instead of granting these powers generally?

Mr. Bevan: Because these powers are conferred by statute upon the Minister of Health, and they are very wide and unusual powers. They were devolved by me upon the clerks to local authorities in exceptional conditions. The conditions are not now so exceptional, but where there are circumstances in which those powers could be used, I can be asked, and the powers can be exercised quickly.

Mr. Sparks: Why has my right hon. Friend withdrawn from the clerks to local authorities the delegated powers to requisition vacant accommodation for housing purposes?

Mr. Bevan: For the reasons which I have already given. It is not now necessary to exercise these powers as widely and as frequently as was the case a few years ago. Therefore, we can exercise them through the clerks to the local authorities by delegation.

Private Building (Standards)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to secure that before licences are given for the erection of houses by private persons the proposed elevations and materials shall be subject to architectural advice and approval.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make it a condition of the issue of licences for private buildings that the houses shall conform to the standards and requirements of the Housebuilders Registration Council.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Members to Circular 34/47, copies of which I am sending to them. Local authorities will be reminded of the need to ensure a good standard of construction and amenity.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that if something much more effective than that is not done we shall have the same degradation of both town and country that occurred in the 100 years before the war as a result of Tory, Liberal and Labour misrule and bad taste? Why does not the Minister use the powers which


he has, under Section 14 (3, c) of the last Town and Country Planning Act, to require local planning authorities to consult architectural opinion?

Mr. Bevan: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. I shall be only too pleased to exercise such controls as are necessary to produce good housing standards.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether these houses will have to conform to the standard specification referred to in my Question, which involves the giving of a certificate to that effect?

Mr. Bevan: It is not intended to do that at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have given every encouragement to the Housebuilders' Registration Council—rather more than was given in the past, I think. This is a matter for some discipline by the builders themselves, and by the local authorities, but if there are likely to be abuses I will certainly take action to prevent them.

Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that local authorities have power to require "good standards of construction and amenities," can he say whether "amenities" in that context includes decent design or merely refers to baths, h. and c., and so on?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid it does not include design. We have no Ministry of Fine Arts.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning has ample powers of supervision and control of external appearance and design?

Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to be able to welcome this urgency from hon. Members opposite to impose more controls.

Owner-occupiers (Building Licences)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether consideration has been given to the position arising on the death or bankruptcy of intending owner-occupiers referred to in paragraph eight of his Departmental circular 108/48, dated 25th June, 1948; and with what result.

Mr. Bevan: A licence is personal and is not transferable. Where necessary, an application for a new licence to complete the structure would be considered by the local authority on its individual merits.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister give consideration to the specific question asked here, because otherwise contractual difficulties of various sorts might ensue in the event of the circumstances referred to in the Question?

Mr. Bevan: I will certainly consider that further.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE (MANPOWER)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement indicating the scope of his discussions with representatives of local authority associations and Government Departments to explore the possibility of simplifying administrative arrangements in order to reduce manpower in the local government service.

Mr. Bevan: The intention is that the discussion will cover the whole field of the arrangements between Government Departments and local authorities.

Mr. Swingler: Does my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that the reduction of 30,000 during this year forecast in the Economic Survey will be achieved?

Mr. Bevan: That is another question entirely. This Question relates to the scope of the discussions about simplifying administrative arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (COMMITTEE REPORT)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health (1) when he expects to receive the report of the Committee which was set up by him to advise him on the disputed effect of the National Health Service Act, 1946;
(2) when he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to his undertaking to amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, so as to make it impossible to institute a full time salaried medical service by regulation alone.

Mr. Bevan: I hope to receive this report by the end of September, and amending legislation to cover anything necessary in the light of the report, together with the point mentioned in Question No. 28 will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does not the Minister agree that the fact that the doctors are entering the Service before the settlement of the vexed question involved is an indication of their strong desire to give the Service a good start? Will the right Gentleman give a definite undertaking, first of all, that he will implement the recommendations of the Committee when in due course they become known, and in the second place that he will not increase the salary element before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to be able to say that despite the prophecies of certain pessimists the doctors are entering the Service in very large numbers, which is an indication of their confidence in the word of the Minister of Health.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely, the Minister realises that the reason why the doctors are entering the scheme is because the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the advice given to him from this side of the House, and that if he would accept more of the advice from this side of the House he would be able to get through these difficulties more quickly?

Mr. Bevan: Before many years are over, or it may be months, hon. Members opposite will even be claiming credit for the Health Act itself, although they voted against both the Second and the Third Readings.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is not the Minister's recollection leading him astray? The Health Service is due to the proposals of the Coalition Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the votes on this side were directed against eliminating certain features, and we hope that their elimination will now make a success of the scheme?

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can derive what satisfaction he wishes from the situation, but the fact is that hon. Members opposite were unable to secure the co-operation of the medical profession in any proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the first assembly of the World Health Organisation.

Mr. Bevan: This most important assembly opened on 24th June. More than 50 countries are represented. The United Kingdom Delegation is headed by the Chief Medical Officer of my Department. The main subjects for consideration will, I understand, be malaria, maternal and child health, tuberculosis, and venereal disease.

Mr. Lindsay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the excellent work which this organisation is doing, and the firm technical ground now being established, will the right hon. Gentleman consider next year himself going to this Conference and representing the Government there?

Mr. Bevan: I attach the utmost importance to the work of this international organisation, and I am delighted to note that most of the great nations of the world are either members of it or are associated with this Conference. I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Soviet Union is taking part in the work of this Conference?

Mr. Bevan: I am glad to say it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER RESOURCES (NATIONAL SURVEY)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the National Survey of Water Resources which his Department has in hand; and, particularly, whether information has now been gathered about the best means of providing ample water storage for London in times of drought.

Mr. Bevan: Detailed surveys of demands and resources by my engineering inspectors have been completed or are in progress for the greater part of the country. It has not been considered necessary to undertake a similar survey


for the London area, since a great deal of information on the subject is already available from other sources.

Mr. Hurd: Will not the Minister make the fullest information available to local water authorities, including the Metropolitan Water Board, so that when they are proposing further projects they will have more reliable information on which to work?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the central survey body meet constantly? How often does it meet? Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the water supplies of the country should derive from a national rather than a regional angle?

Mr. Bevan: It would be much easier to get water resources from a national rather than a regional angle if legislation for which the party opposite are responsible had been better.

Mr. Nicholson: That may be a very clever reply, but I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would answer my question.

Mr. Bevan: It is an apt reply. It is one of the defects of the existing water supplies that water cannot yet be regarded from a national angle but must be regarded from a regional angle. These surveys are in continuous operation, and the reports are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC LIBRARY, CHELSEA (LINOLEUM)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision not to assist the Chelsea Borough Council in obtaining linoleum for the Public Library.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The shortage of supplies makes it necessary to impose severe restrictions on the use of linoleum, and I regret that permits cannot yet be issued for its use in libraries.

Commander Noble: While I appreciate the Minister's remarks about the shortage of this material, could he not reconsider his decision in view of the fact that it involves replacing material destroyed by

enemy action, and bearing in mind the great benefits afforded to students by the public reference library?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but they can use the library without necessarily having linoleum. When we are short of linoleum it is necessary to restrict its use to such places as hospitals, maternity hospitals and places of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITAL INMATES, BARNET (TRANSFER)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that as a result of the decision of the North West Metropolitan Hospital Board eight men of ages between 62 and 85 who have spent from 10 to 20 years at the Wellhouse Hospital, Barnet, are to be compulsorily transferred to another institution some 20 miles off; and whether he will take steps to prevent this hardship.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that these are not hospital patients, and that the County Council have accordingly arranged to transfer them to the nearest suitable institution.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the Minister appreciate that this is a non-recurrent problem, because it is not intended in any case to replace these eight old men, and would he not intervene in this matter to see that the consideration of humanity prevails over this signal illustration of bumbledom in Barnet?

Mr. Bevan: I do not agree that the local authority have not exercised humanity in this matter, and hon. Members ought not to make statements of that kind about responsible elected authorities. The impression itself is misjudged.

Mr. Walker-Smith: When the Minister refers to "responsible elected authorities" does not he appreciate the great difficulty in which those constituents of Barnet are placed when they apply for redress to their Member of Parliament and find that he himself is a member of the board against whose decision they are invoking his assistance?

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely where the hon. Gentleman is entirely at fault in his Question. This is not the responsibility of the Regional Hospital Board but the responsibility of the local authority, and


the hon. Member should inform himself of the facts before making wild statements.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. In anticipation of that unhelpful reply I have already started balloting so that I can raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I will do so at the earliest opportunity, if I am able.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: As notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment has been given no further questions can be asked.

Dr. Taylor: On a point of Order—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: This is a point of Order and I must hear it.

Dr. Taylor: Is it not usual for an hon. Member before he gives notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment to allow an hon. Member about whose constituency a Question has been asked to put a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I imagined the matter was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith).

Dr. Taylor: It is in my constituency.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but notice of the Adjournment has been given and the rule is as I have said. I am very sorry.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Question by the hon. Member for Hertford was quite out of Order in view of the fact that he had already decided to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I think we must go on.

Mr. Messer: May I ask, Sir, if you have not already ruled that an hon. Member must be responsible for the accuracy of statements contained in his Question and, if that is the case, may I ask whether it has been brought to your notice that the Regional Board has no power whatever in this matter until 5th July?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hertford is responsible for his statement. Whether it is an accurate statement or a misstatement, I cannot tell; he is responsible.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. I would like your Ruling, Sir, whether, if an hon. Member shows he is going to raise the Question on the Adjournment by signing the book before he comes into the Chamber, is he entitled to ask supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: I imagine the hon. Member for Hertford is taking steps to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Whether he has put his name in the book, I do not know. I have no knowledge of that. He may have put his name in the book in order to raise some other subject for all I know.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENBORNE RESERVOIR SCHEME

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health if he has now decided to hold a public inquiry before authorising further trial borings at Brimpton in connection with the Metropolitan Water Board's project for flooding the Enborne valley to make a reservoir.

Mr. Bevan: I am arranging for one of my inspectors to hold a local hearing into the application of the Metropolitan Water Board for authority under Section 8 of the Water Act, 1948, to enter on and survey lands in the Parish of Brimpton and to carry out experimental borings for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil. The applicants and the owners and occupiers of the land who have objected will be invited to attend and to state their case.

Mr. Hurd: Will some of the public bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Farmers' Union and so on, be allowed to put their point of view?

Mr. Bevan: I imagine that anyone who has a valid objection will be heard.

Mr. Nicholson: In regard to what points will the inquiry be empowered to act—to review what aspects of the problem?

Mr. Bevan: All matters must be taken into account under the statute. I can, of course, express no opinion at all because I am acting in a judicial capacity.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers (Tuberculosis)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Education (1) whether he has now reminded education authorities of the standing instructions issued by the Ministry of Health and his Department that a teacher found to be suffering from active tuberculosis shall be suspended from teaching;
(2) whether he has considered the desirability of making it compulsory for all teachers to have a regular medical overhaul in order to ensure that they are not carriers of tuberculosis; and what decision he has reached.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum which has been issued reminding education authorities of the action to be taken when a teacher is found to be suffering from active tuberculosis. The memorandum does not require teachers to be medically examined at regular intervals after their entry into teaching service.

Mr. Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is extremely dangerous to rely on a medical inspection which may have taken place 15, 20 or 25 years earlier, probably without the assistance of radiography, and how does he propose to make his answer effective without regular medical inspections?

Mr. Tomlinson: My hon. Friend will see from the memorandum that I am suggesting greater use might be made of mass radiography. But compulsion is a question, I think, which would need to be very carefully considered.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether more could not be done to encourage teachers to have examinations by mass radiography every five or ten years?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think my hon. Friend will find that that question is raised in the memorandum.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is the memorandum to be printed in HANSARD or made available in the Library to hon. Members?

Mr. Tomlinson: It has been sent by the Ministry of Education to local authorities, but it could be put in the Library if desired.

Sir W. Wakefield: Would the right hon. Gentleman put it in the Library?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend also extend that idea to doctors, nurses, milk attendants and all other people who are in very close contact with children today?

Teachers' Salaries (Special Allowances)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Education if he will now make a statement on the effect on our schools' staffs of the award of special allowances to certain teachers, causing thereby in a large number of cases the payment of different salaries to persons equally qualified and of equal experience and performing similar duties; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view to remedying this anomaly.

Mr. Tomlinson: Under the current Burnham scales the local education authority is given discretion within limits to determine the number of posts of special responsibility and the amount of the allowances. This provision, which follows a similar provision in the previous report, received the fullest consideration by the Committee and I see no grounds for a special inquiry.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases these awards are automatically granted every year to members of the staff, and is he not also aware that greater use of these awards is now being made by certain local authorities to try to attract teachers into their employment, and do not these circumstances justify a full inquiry into these matters?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would certainly not accept the first two suggestions made by the hon. Member, and, therefore, the third does not arise.

Camps (Cost)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Education how many camps were constructed under the Camps Act of 1939;


the total cost to the latest convenient date; the purpose to which they are now being put; and the degree to which the accommodation provided is utilised.

Mr. Tomlinson: Thirty-one camps were constructed in England and Wales under the Camps Act, 1939. The total capital expenditure incurred on them was £1,055,390; running costs are met from the revenue received from the letting of the camps. Twenty-nine are let to local education authorities for parties of children from schools maintained by them, one is used by an orphanage school, and one is occupied by the military. The effective period of occupation varies from nine to 11 months of the year, and the average number of children per camp during the year ended 31st March, 1948, was 177.

Sir S. Reed: Does the revenue cover the whole of the capital cost as well as the sinking fund and maintenance charges? Is there any reason why the military should remain in occupation of a camp which was set up by order of the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the benefit of children, and to give them a place at which to have open-air holidays?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give the answer to the first part of the supplementary question without notice. With regard to the second part, I will make inquiry.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the importance of the camps in providing holiday facilities, will my right hon. Friend say whether the National Camps Corporation is still in existence? If it is not, will he consider its re-establishment?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is in existence, and these camps are let by that Corporation. The fact that 30 out of 31 are being used by school children, and being used for 11 months of the year, seems to me to show that they could not make much more use of them.

Mr. Pickthorn: In view of the figure of 177, the number actually using each camp on the average, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would have been the maximum number, or what percentage 177 is of the capacity of the camps?

Mr. Tomlinson: When I have been given time to work it out.

Mr. Scollan: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken to get the military out of the camp, and to make it available for the children?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have already said I shall make inquiry.

Uncleared Bomb Sites (Warnings)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Education whether he will instruct local education authorities to give publicity in schools to the danger of children playing on uncleared bomb sites.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure I can rely on the good sense of local education authorities and the heads of schools to give such advice when it is needed.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a low days ago a child was killed on one of these sites? As these sites are dangerous, will he give instructions to education authorities that they should do something about this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: Already, on two occasions, not instructions but advice has been given in this direction, and I am sure that this Question and answer will further the advice already given.

Mr. Rankin: While it is important to warn children of these dangers, will my right hon. Friend use all his influence to get these bomb sites cleared as soon as possible?

Schools (Special 'Lectures)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Education whether he will consider initiating special lectures in schools in urban areas with a view to combating hooliganism and vandalism.

Mr. Tomlinson: Teachers are accustomed to help their pupils to develop good manners and civilised standards of behaviour, and I do not consider that any special action on my part is necessary.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is a local authority in London which has initiated these special lectures with very good results, and will he encourage other local authorities to follow this excellent example?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would not do anything to prevent them following a line of that kind, but if every experiment made in schools of a particular character is sponsored by the Minister, there would be no curriculum but just a lot of special subjects.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the Minister bear in mind that whatever the standard of behaviour in Bedford, there is no need for these lectures in Oldham?

Mr. McGovern: Before the right hon. Gentleman attempts to give lectures against vandalism in those areas, will he give a lecture to hon. Members in this House? Has he looked at the telephone kiosks in this House?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no control over that, but I will consider it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware, with regard to the previous supplementary question, that my Question did not have its fount and origin in Bedford, but in London?

Horsa Huts

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education why the provision and erection of Horsa huts is not up to the time and progress schedule laid down by his Department; what are the main reasons for this delay; and what action is being taken to increase the supply of huts during the forthcoming autumn when the full effects of raising the school-leaving age will be realised.

Mr. Tomlinson: The provision and erection of Horsa huts is not up to schedule for the reason given in my reply to the hon. Member on 4th March last. The supply of huts is adequate but shortages of some items of equipment continue to delay completion of the work. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is doing his utmost to accelerate erection of the huts.

Teachers' Emergency Training Grants

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the Minister of Education (1) whether, in view of the fact that men now undergoing emergency courses for the teaching profession are unable to meet their own and family responsibilities under the present grants, he will consider a new scale to cover such full responsibilities;
(2) whether he is prepared to make ad hoc payments to cover any necessary family expenditure incurred by men now in training for the teaching profession, where such amounts can be proved to be greater than the grant made to them.

Mr. Tomlinson: Grants to students in the Emergency Training Scheme are based on rates recommended to me by the scholarship committees at the various universities and include extra allowances to meet the special needs of these students. I am at present considering whether the present scales are adequate, but I cannot yet make any statement. Meantime, I am always ready to consider any individual case of hardship and, if necessary, to increase the grant so far as I have financial authority to do so.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister say how long the process of reconsideration is likely to last, and would he, in the meantime, send a copy of his answer to every college, so that all those people in financial distress will know how to secure redress?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not found any reluctance on the part of members of colleges who have been in difficulties to write to me. I do not see the necessity for the suggestion.

Emergency Training Colleges (Ex-Service men)

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education how many ex-Service men have been accepted for emergency training colleges and are still awaiting entrance.

Mr. Tomlinson: The number of ex-Service men who have been accepted but not yet offered a place in a college was 8,577 on 24th June.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend now consider giving some definite ruling, because these young men have now been waiting for something like two years? Only last night two of them came to see me here. One is earning £140 a year as a temporary teacher, and the other man, with two children, has been waiting for 2½ years. They both said that if the right hon. Gentleman could give a definite ruling that it is not much good their waiting, it would save a great deal of anxiety.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sending out a circular, pointing out the effect of our having had to increase the number of women to be taken into these colleges. In the cases which the hon. Member has mentioned, where they have been waiting for that length of time, I have no doubt a satisfactory answer can be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL TITLE (ALTERATION)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Prime Minister whether the proclamation on Tuesday, 22nd June, of alteration in the Royal Title, was drafted and issued after consultation with the Dominions.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Pickthorn: Was the result of the consultations full consent? Were the consultations entered upon in full cognisance of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that that would have been present in the minds of all the Dominions. There was full discussion, and legislation passed by the Dominions.

Mr. Pickthorn: Was consent complete?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Distribution of Labour

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is still his policy to bring about reductions in manpower in the building industry, the clothing trade, and the local government service as given in Table XXI of the Economic Survey for 1948; and whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the first four months of this year.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It has never been my policy to reduce employment in any industry. As is most clearly explained in the Economic Survey for 1948, the Government's policy is to reinforce the essential industries which are under-manned. The figures showing reductions in certain other industries given in the Economic Survey are merely forecasts of what was likely to happen, and are not objectives.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the changes in the distribution of labour in the first four months of this year, he is satisfied that the increases referred to in paragraph 186 of the Economic Survey for 1948 can be achieved.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 22nd June to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).

Mr. Swingler: Is it not the fact that these were stated as objectives in the Economic Survey, and that according to the figures of the first four months of 1948 recruitment to the under-manned trades has not been up to the standard set by the Government? Will the Minister make a statement on what further steps he is taking to increase the recruitment during the next few months?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that the information was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge on 22nd June, which, sets out further figures.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it my right hon. Friend's policy to increase the number of workers employed in the building trade as far as Scotland is concerned?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour why he has requested the co-operation of employees and trade unions in reducing the number of workers in the clothing industry; and if he will give an assurance that he will not direct such workers to do other work.

Mr. Isaacs: I have not asked any industry to reduce the number of workers they employ. What I have done is to ask employers in textile areas to facilitate the transfer of suitable workers to the textile industries. Compulsory directions are not being used under this scheme.

Blind Workers (Wages)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has recognised for grant aid scales of wages negotiated between the managements of blind workshops and the local authorities, on the one hand, and the recognised representatives of blind workers, on the other; why there


has been delay in reaching a settlement of the wage scale; and what difficulties lie in the way of achieving agreement.

Mr. Isaacs: The payment which it is proposed to make to local authorities towards their costs in providing employment for blind persons is not related to any particular scale of wages. There is, therefore, no question of wage scales needing to be recognised. Their settlement is a matter for the parties concerned.

Mr. Evans: Could the Minister tell us whether there is any difficulty over duplication of responsibility owing to the duties laid upon local authorities under the National Assistance Act and those laid on his Department under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act? It is recognised that there are very great difficulties in implementing the national scales under blind welfare, so will my right hon. Friend look into the whole question?

Mr. Isaacs: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difficulty between the responsible bodies in handling this question. With regard to the scales, there is some difficulty amongst the local authorities and those acting for the workers in coming to a decision, but that does not affect the grant made by the Ministry, which is made irrespective of rates of wages.

West Indians

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in finding employment for the West Indians who arrived here from the "Empire Windrush"; and whether there has been any difficulty in finding housing accommodation for them near their work.

Mr. Isaacs: Of the 223 West Indians who landed from the "Empire Windrush" and who were accommodated at Clapham, 148 have been placed in employment. Eleven are under submission and 49 await placing. There have been no difficulties in finding accommodation other than those normally encountered owing to the housing shortage.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Indians concerned, and those hon. Members who have been to the Clapham deep shelter to see them,

have been greatly impressed by the patience and hard work of his official, who has worked and lived down that deep shelter day and night for a whole week on end?

Mr. Isaacs: In view of the rather unfair comments that were made about the attitude of the Ministry in certain quarters, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Unofficial Strikes (Inquiry)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will set up a Commission of Inquiry on unofficial strikes, in view of their menace to the food supply and other necessities of life.

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think this is a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem, but the position is being explored.

Mr. Freeman: Could not some simpler and more direct method of dealing with such emergencies be developed, instead of waiting until a critical situation arises in the country and then declaring a state of emergency? Is not an inquiry into the whole matter opportune just now?

Mr. Isaacs: I think most of that supplementary question is wide of most of the Question. These unofficial strikes do not come within the purview of the Ministry of Labour until the Ministry is approached by the organisations concerned, and while we are very much concerned about these continuous outbreaks of resentment against trade union authority, we are not in a position to intervene until we are asked.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to speed up the conciliation and arbitration machinery, delay in which is responsible, in considerable measure, for many of these unofficial strikes?

Mr. Isaacs: As far as I am aware, the instance in question arose without delay of any sort at all.

Mr. David Renton: Bearing in mind that the national interests are affected by these unofficial strikes, is it safe to leave it uncertain whether a particular body will bring a matter to the notice of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Isaacs: It is difficult to answer matters of general principle on specific cases of this sort. The Ministry of Labour is not a body which can intervene in any of these matters until it has been asked for its services to be given, or until other factors emerge. We have to take each case on its merits.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the impression now prevailing, there are strong reasons in the interests of personal freedom for the Government's failing to interfere wherever possible and keeping as far as possible out of matters of this kind?

Washington Convention (Women)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the Social Security Legislation, becoming operative in Britain on 5th July, fulfils, among other things, the conditions laid down in the Convention concerning the employment of women before and after childbirth, Washington, 1919, so far as this country is concerned, the Government is now prepared to ratify that Convention.

Mr. Isaacs: This is now under consideration.

Mrs. Middleton: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask him if he is aware how much the Members on this side of the House, and particularly the women Members, welcome the fact that legislation has now been passed which will enable us to adhere to this Convention; and, indeed, that a further step has been taken in that both domestic and agricultural workers are covered by it?

Mr. Isaacs: It is the desire of the Government to implement the Convention, but there are internal problems between ourselves and Northern Ireland which have to be straightened out.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Overseas Visitors (Currency)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way he advises all prospective visitors to the United Kingdom that only £5 in British currency may be brought into this country;

whether this information has been published in the Falkland Isles; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will refund the £8 taken at London Airport in May from Mr. Edward McAtasney, who was unaware of this regulation when he left the Falkland Isles for the purpose of placing orders in this country.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the answer is a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sharp: Can the Financial Secretary say whether this long answer is a favourable one?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think so, like most Treasury answers.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the fact that the last part of the Question asks if he will refund the money, can the right hon. Gentleman say how the answer can be longer than "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It does happen to be something more than "Yes" or "No."

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is great resentment by foreigners arriving in this country who have their money stolen from them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—and will he take steps to arrange that when people do come to this country with surplus money, with no intention of defrauding the Government, their money shall be returned to them when they leave for home?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have taken steps to apprise travellers to this country of the regulations. There are quite a lot of forged notes abroad, and a large number are bought at discount. It is part of the law of this land that notes above a certain amount should not be brought in, and we must rigorously, if we can, see that the law is obeyed.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman make a really Herculean effort and say whether this gentleman will have the money refunded to him or not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In the Falkland Isles they have announced very properly that only £5 can be brought into this country. The authorities there permit travellers to


take out £10, and that being the case we intend to refund to this gentleman a part of the amount.

Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British citizens leaving this country are inconvenienced, and that when they find themselves in possession of more than £5 they have their money confiscated?
Following is the answer:
The Central Banks in other countries of the British Commonwealth and in foreign countries are informed of United Kingdom exchange control regulations. In the case of the Colonies, including the Falkland Islands, instructions are sent to the Colonial Governments, who make them public by a public notice or by sending instructions to local banks. The latter should advise any prospective travellers to the United Kingdom at the time application is made for exchange of any regulations which apply to them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed on 8th September, 1947, to all Colonies, including the Falkland Islands, telling them that the maximum amount of sterling notes which could be imported into the United Kingdom had been reduced from £20 to £5 As a result, a public notioe was issued from the Colonial Secretary's Office, Stanley, on 16th September, 1947, but the local Exchange Control, whilst warning travellers that only £5 could be brought into the United Kingdom permits the export from the Falkland Islands of £10. In these circumstances, I am prepared to agree that a further £5 should be returned to Mr. McAtasney.

Annual Incomes (Assessment)

Sir W. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the same exactitude is employed in assessing incomes annually as is employed in incomes under the Pay As You Earn system.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Subject to the limitations imposed by present shortages of trained staff, all liabilities to tax are determined as exactly as possible.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Piratin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increasing difficulties which the fur trade is meeting in selling utility fur garments for export; and whether he will assist the trade by exempting such utility fur garments from Purchase Tax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am aware that the sale of fur garments abroad is less easy than it was, but my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to making any further adjustment of the Purchase Tax rating.

Mr. Piratin: While I appreciate the fact that it was only a couple of weeks since the Purchase Tax on these garments was reduced to 33⅓ per cent., nevertheless, this Purchase Tax injures the export trade, and will not the Financial Secretary reconsider—taking his time over it—the exemption of these goods from Purchase Tax?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It can hardly injure the export trade directly because the export trade does not pay Purchase Tax.

Nationalised Industries (Franked Letters)

Dr. Segal: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is permissible for hon. Members to use officially-stamped envelopes in addressing their letters to the Chairmen of Nationalised Industries.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I am afraid not.

Dr. Segal: Does not the Minister realise that this will be an extra cost out of the pockets of hon. Members, and can he say how far this cost is likely to be increased during the remaining two years of the Government's term of office?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these franked envelopes are so much smaller than those normally issued, since they must have considerably more contents?

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the practice of these chairmen when they get unstamped letters? Do they have to pay 5d. on them, do they get them free, or do they return them?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I honestly do not know. I am not one of the chairmen. It is quite possible that they are surcharged, but I really do not know.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the Minister of Fuel and Power has asked hon. Members to address themselves to the Board and not to him, may we send our letters to the Minister with a request that they be forwarded?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Can the Leader of the House make a statement on the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 5th July and Tuesday, 6th July—A debate will take place on European Economic Co-operation which will arise on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister.
Wednesday, 7th July—Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill [Lords];
Report stage of Army Expenditure 1946–47;
Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Employment and Training Bill;
Motion to approve the Greenwich Hospital Accounts.
Thursday, 8th July—Supply (20th Allotted Day):—Committee. A debate will take place on Colonial Affairs.
Friday, 9th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill and the Agricultural Wages Bill [Lords];
Report and Third Reading of the Veterinary Surgeons Bill [Lords];
Committee and remaining stages of the Factories Bill [Lords].
At the end of Business on Monday the Government hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to consider a Motion to set up a Select Committee to revise the Standing Orders. The House will recall that on 4th November last, when we considered amendments to Standing Orders, I proposed to the House that we should set up a small Technical Committee to revise the Standing Orders

following the changes then made, and mentioned that Mr. Speaker had kindly consented to preside over the Committee. Revision is long overdue and the amendments to the Standing Orders, although only of a technical nature, have been found to be so numerous that the Government, after consultation with Mr. Speaker, consider that it would be more appropriate to set up a Select Committee. I hope that the House will agree to this proposal.

Mr. Stanley: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question about the Debate on Monday and Tuesday? In view of the form in which the Motion has been set down, is it the intention of the Government—subject, of course, to Mr. Speaker's Ruling—that the Debate should take a wide form, and that the general economic situation of the country—in regard, of course, to this help that is to be given—should be discussed?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. It will be seen, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has apprehended, that in the Motion there appear these words:
and having regard to the need to the achievement and maintenance of a satisfactory level of economic activity"—
and so on. The Government thought that, as there had been some request in the House that we should debate the general economic situation, and as the Anglo-American Agreement obviously must be taken in that setting, it would meet the general convenience of the House if the Motion were rather wide so that, subject to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the Debate could cover the aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that if we are to discuss the Eire Trade Agreement at all, we cannot do so under the Vote of any one Ministry, will the Leader of the House say whether it is proposed to find time to debate that Agreement?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I am not advised that Parliamentary approval is necessary. Of course, it could be debated on Supply; but it is one of numerous agreements that deal with these matters of trade relations between our country and another, and I do not think it is a subject which lends itself to a reasonable


request to the Government to provide special time; nor do I think there is any controversy about it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Wilt my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule on Monday and Tuesday to enable a few more back benchers to speak?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I think that two days are adequate for this subject, and there may be some other Business to be taken after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure, by examining other than the usual channels, how many people want to speak?—because on the last occasion when he said he would examine the usual channels and he said that he did not think it was necessary to suspend the Rule, in fact over 70 hon. Members had got their names down and my right hon. Friend did not know it. Would he make sure that on Monday he does know?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend and I are always doing battle upon this matter, and I do not always see eye to eye with him about it. I do not know that we can settle these things on a mathematical basis; one has to consider the general convenience of the House, and the House has not been exactly idle in recent times.

Mr. Stokes: Nobody need stay if they do not want to.

Mr. Morrison: A lot of people have got to stay when they do not want to; not everybody, but a lot of people.

Mr. Churchill: And a lot of people have to go when they do not want to.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman speaks feelingly from experience.

Major Legge-Bourke: Further to my previous Question, does not the Leader of the House appreciate that the Eire Trade Agreement covers other matters than those arising out of the Ministry of Food Vote; and, in view of that, if we want to discuss the whole thing, can he not allow a day for a proper discussion of it?

Mr. Morrison: If advice is needed on what Vote to put down in order to cover the ground, I am perfectly sure that advice can be obtained from the authorities of

the House; and if the Government could assist the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point we should be glad to do so.

Mr. Pritt: As one who does stay when the House sits late, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind about Tuesday, so that if he does see that there is pressure, he might extend the time then?

Mr. Morrison: Well, we have always got fresh and receptive minds on everything, as I hope the hon. and learned Member has.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Leader of the House aware that a question was raised about the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee; that the Chairman advised us it could only be dealt with in the House; and would he consider giving time to discuss a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself in regard to the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, about where and under what conditions they should be held?

Mr. Morrison: This is news to me, and as it affects Scotland I should need to be thoroughly briefed about it before I said anything.

Mr. Crawley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Debate on Colonial Affairs will cover the entire Colonial Empire, including economic development, or whether we could get further time later on this year, to discuss the economic development of the Empire?

Mr. Morrison: The Vote is the Colonial Office Vote, and I suppose those things will be in Order. But no doubt the Opposition have views about the scope they intend to cover.

Mr. Stanley: I think it is for the convenience always of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that at any rate the first day should enable him to make a general statement about the whole Colonial field.

Mr. Morrison: Then that is all right.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Motion for setting up a Select Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders of the House be debated in the House; and will there be an opportunity of raising the question whether the Scottish Grand Committee should sit in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have thought so. The Motion is, of course, debatable, but I was hoping there would be such a general consensus of opinion that a Debate might not arise. It is competent for a Debate to ensue; but I should have doubted whether the nature of this Motion would bring into its scope the particular point to which my hon. Friend refers. It is, of course, a matter for the Chair.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): I will, with permission, make a statement to the House on artificial limbs.
As I told the House on 22nd June, I have been holding discussions with representatives of the artificial limb industry regarding supplies of these articles for the disabled as a part of the National Health Service. I am now glad to say that satisfactory arrangements have been agreed between us which will enable every firm in the industry, which is able to produce a limb of high quality, to continue in production. These arrangements will be as follow:

(1) Every patient requiring an artificial limb will be asked to attend at one of my Ministry's limb fitting centres reasonably close to his home. He will there be examined by a Ministry of Pensions experienced and highly qualified limb fitting surgeon who, in consultation with the surgeon who performed the amputation, will prescribe the type of limb required for his particular stump.
(2) The patient will then be given all necessary information to enable him to make his choice of limb from lists of makers whose limbs have been approved by the Ministry of Pensions and who have entered into a contract for this purpose.
(3) If he chooses a limb such as is now being supplied to war disabled pensioners he will get this as a free issue. If he chooses an approved limb of some other make and this costs more, he will be charged the excess.
(4) If he chooses the free limb, he will be dealt with throughout at the Ministry's limb fitting centre. If, however, he chooses another approved limb he will be put into touch with the maker who will arrange for measurements to be taken and fittings to be given. He will be required to attend at the Ministry's limb fitting centre when he has been satisfactorily fitted in this manner, where he will be examined by the limb fitting surgeon, who will ensure that the limb is satisfactory in all respects.

The considerations I have had in mind in making these arrangements are, firstly,

that the patient should, on the one hand, have a reasonable selection in regard to the type of limb and maker, while, on the other hand, he has at his disposal all the specialised medical skill acquired by the Ministry's limb fitting service during the last 30 years, and it is for this latter reason that I attach great importance to the patient visiting the limb fitting centre both at the beginning and at the conclusion of the limb fitting operation. So far as the limb makers are concerned, these arrangements will enable private firms making high quality limbs to continue production under reasonably favourable conditions whilst, at the same time, safeguarding the adequacy and quality of the supply of artificial limbs which are likely to be required under the National Health Service Act.

Mr. Churchill: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his benevolent swan song, and may I, with indulgence, express the feelings of Members in all parts of the House in wishing him a fruitful career of public service in the course which he has chosen?

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman questions on two points, which I am sure are not fundamental to this scheme? In regard to the final approval, is it really necessary, where there is a surgeon in the National Health Service who has performed the amputation and has approved the type of limb, for the Ministry of Pensions to be brought in for final approval? Could not the National Health Service surgeon certify final approval? Is it really necessary for the person in that case to go to the pensions centre? The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultations between the two surgeons, and that may entail a good deal of difficulty for the National Health Service surgeon. Cannot the National Health Service surgeon enable the patient to be put into direct touch with the firm concerned?

Mr. Buchanan: These matters have been the subject of discussion, and I have gone into this scheme very thoroughly. I hope that this scheme will not go on without a review at a comparatively early period, but in the early stages I must insist on a limb fitting surgeon. These are men in the medical profession who are accepted as knowing their job extremely well. While I am on my feet, may I say to


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), with whom I have been associated: "Thank you very much?"

Dr. Haden Guest: Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about improvements to artificial limbs in the future?

Mr. Buchanan: The Ministry have a service at their disposal in connection with improvements to artificial limbs, and we spend a considerable amount of money and time on research. It is our purpose not only to make the results of this research available to the main Government contractors, but to make them available to every maker of artificial limbs.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this very fine gesture as a last act before he leaves the House, may I ask him to give further consideration to a closer contact between patients and individual firms in view of the record of individual firms in the manufacture of artificial limbs?

Mr. Buchanan: This scheme is a fair compromise, and I trust that Members will give it a chance to work. At the end of a reasonable period of time the matter can be reviewed again.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will allay a good many doubts and will be received with general satisfaction, as most of his recent statements have been; and that if occasion does arise for him to leave the House, he will leave it with the gratitude and respect of ex-Service men everywhere and with the esteem of his colleagues in this House?

Mr. Spearman: As one who is very particularly concerned, may I pay my respect to the Minister for his bigness in going back on his original policy, and may I express my gratification that he has adopted this course which will help so many of us who have lost limbs?

Mr. Percy Wells: What is the position in regard to repairs to existing artificial limbs?

Mr. Buchanan: It is assumed that the person concerned will go back to the maker of the limb. We have come to an arrangement with the makers of these limbs that the Government will pay the proper costs of repair.

Mr. William Ross: In view of the fact that a patient may have to travel quite a long distance to a limb-fitting centre, will the Minister be still more benevolent and pay the travelling expenses?

Mr. Buchanan: That is one of the reasons for setting up these centres. If it is a reasonable distance which has to be travelled we will meet the reasonable costs, as we do now.

Sir Ian Fraser: May I, with the indulgence of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman to take away with him the good wishes of ex-Service men generally whom he has served very faithfully in this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 106.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Berry, H.
Chater, D.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Beswick, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Binns, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Blackburn, A. R.
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Coldrick, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Boardman, H.
Collindridge, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bottomley, A. G.
Collins, V. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Bowden, Flg. Offr, H. W.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cove, W. G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Crawley, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Balfour, A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Barstow, P. G.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Battley, J. R.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Carmichael, James
Deer, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chamberlain, R. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.




Driberg, T. E. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lever, N. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Fairhurst, F.
Longden, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.
Snow, J. W.


Follick, M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Solley, L. J.


Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mack, J. D.
Stokes, R. R.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gallacher, W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Gilzean, A.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Symonds, A. L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mikardo, Ian
Tiffany, S.


Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J.


Guy, W. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tolley, L.


Hale, Leslie
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morrison., Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Viant, S. P.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.
Wadsworth, G.


Hardman, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Walkden, E.


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Warbey, W. N.


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Weitzman, D.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.
West, D. G.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hoy, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wigg, George


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Perrins, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Piratin, P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Janner, B.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Proctor, W T.
Willis, E.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jenkins, R. H.
Randall, H. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Johnston, Douglas
Rankin, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Woods, G. S.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. F.


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.
Mr. Simmons and


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Scollan, T.
Mr. George Wallace.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Segal, Dr. S.





NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drewe, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Barlow, Sir J.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Glyn, Sir R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Haughton, S. G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Carson, E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
McFarlane, C. S.


Channon, H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
MacLeod, J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hurd, A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


De la Bère, R.
Jennings, R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Digby, S. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Donner, P. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)







Mellor, Sir J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Matson, A. H. E.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Touche, G. C.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Renton, D.
Walker-Smith, D.


Nicholson, G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Robinson, Roland
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Nutting, Anthony
Ropner, Col. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smiles, Lt.-Cot. Sir W.
York, C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Snadden, W. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Pickthorn, K.
Spearman, A. C. M.



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stoddart-Scott, Cot M.
Commander Agnew and


Prescott, Stanley
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mr. Studholme.


Question put, and agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered:
That the Committee of Supply be discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and that the said Estimates be referred to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills—

Class I., Vote 24—Scottish Home Department;
Class VI., Vote 21—Department of Agriculture for Scotland."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (PROCLAMATION)

Message from His Majesty [29th June] considered.

Mr. Speaker: The following is the Message which it is my duty to read:
The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, having enacted that if it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the cessation of work in certain sections of the dock industry having, in His Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act:
His Majesty has deemed it proper, by proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act and dated the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message, communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and dated the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to declare a state of emergency.
I do not think I need say anything on this Motion, except that, in the altered circumstances, the Government have no intention of issuing any regulations.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.59 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the amount of liability which the Export Credits Guarantee Department is authorised to assume under the Export Guarantees Acts, 1939 and 1945, in order that the Department can continue to provide to the full the services which it now offers to the British export trade, and which is so much in demand by British exporters. The fact that there is a need for this Bill is evidence of the demand for the services which the Department offers to our export trade. The House, is I think, well aware of what those services are and of the long and successful history of the Department's services in this field for the past quarter of a century. It has represented in fact a most successful incursion on the part of the State into the insurance field. It has undertaken risks which the private insurance companies could never have assumed, and it has represented a most successful but little publicised piece of public enterprise, providing first class service at moderate cost to those who have used it, and at the same time without any loss falling upon the taxpayer.
The guarantees under the Export Guarantees Acts are given subject to the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with an advisory council. There have been arrangements for many years whereby traders can protect themselves against losses in overseas trading by a Government guarantee offered through the services of the Department. Since this Bill raises very substantially the amount of liability which the Department can assume it is right to trace briefly the record of the development of the Department.
As the House knows, the first export credits scheme was introduced in 1919, and took the form of making cash advances for a percentage of the cost of the goods exported. That system continued for two years. It was discontinued in 1921 and a system of guarantees was introduced. That basis is the one in force today, though the scope of the risks which


can be covered by the activities of the Department has now been considerably widened. Broadly speaking, the guarantees now given cover an exporter against a high percentage—up to 85 per cent. for insolvency and 90 per cent. for other risks—of any loss he may incur from causes outside his own control or outside the buyer's control which arise from happenings outside the United Kingdom and which are not normally insurable elsewhere.
Before the war the main risks covered by these guarantees were for consumer goods—generally the insolvency of the overseas buyer, sometimes the inability of a solvent buyer to remit sterling owing to foreign exchange restrictions, but guarantees were also given in those days for important contracts for the export of capital equipment—on longer credit terms—to overseas buyers, including foreign Governments. In May, 1945, when I believe my right hon. Friend was in charge of the activities of the Department, the Department's guarantees were again extended in scope to assist British exporters in their endeavours to achieve the maximum volume of exports.
The House should be told briefly what the present services are which are offered by the Department. The standard form of policy for consumer goods, the "contracts" policy, broadly speaking covers an exporter for any risk outside his own or his buyer's control from the time he books an order to the time he receives sterling or some other approved currency due to him in payment for that order. The risks covered include the insolvency of the buyer; the failure of the buyer to pay for delivered goods within 12 months of the due date; exchange restrictions, or a shortage of exchange in the buyer's country preventing the buyer from transmitting sterling to the United Kingdom; the occurrence of war between the buyer's country and the United Kingdom; the occurrence of war, hostilities, civil war, rebellion, revolution, etc., in the buyer's country; the cancellation or non-renewal of an export licence—a very important risk in these days—or the imposition of restrictions on the export of goods not previously subject to licence; the incurring of irrecoverable extra delivery charges due to diversion of voyage; and, more generally, any other

cause outside the United Kingdom which is beyond the control of the exporter or the buyer.
The policies on these consumer goods normally cover the whole of an exporter's overseas trade or a reasonable share of it for 12 months ahead. Contracts for capital goods are dealt with individually but the percentage of guarantee and the coverage of the risk are very similar to those applicable to consumer goods. With the development of trade with Eastern Europe as a result of bilateral trade agreements, and with certain other countries where there exist in pretty heavy measure the risks against which the Department can provide cover, the services of the Department are now more than ever in demand.
The recent figures show the development of the use made of the Department's services. The value of policies issued for the three years immediately before the war came to about £43 million a year. Wartime figures amounted to £72 million a year, which was also the figure in the first post-war year of 1945–46. The following year, 1946–47, with the development of the export drive, the value of policies rose to £139 million and last year—1947–48—to £186 million. We are, therefore, very near the limit of liability set in the 1945 Act, which itself extended the limit set in the previous Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to come to the House and ask for an extension of that liability limit.
We are asking that the £200 million over-all liability should now be raised under this Bill to £300 million; that the £5 million for what are called "other matters"—I will explain in a moment what they are—be increased to £15 million; that the £15 million for external trade be increased to £30 million. We are not asking for any increase in the £15 million limit placed on the cover for re-export trade. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then President of the Board of Trade moved the Second Reading of the 1945 Act he then envisaged the possibility that we might at some future time have to come to the House for some extension of the figure. We are now very close to the £200 million, and that is the reason why, as a matter of some urgency, we have had to come and ask for an extension in the limits.
It is not only a question of the over-all liability which the Department can assume. The individual limits for particular classes of cover also require to be raised. For instance what are called in the Act "other matters" have a limit of £5 million. This figure was defined in the original Act as enabling guarantees to be given in connection with transactions which though not necessarily resulting in exports might be "conducive" to the establishing or encouraging of export trade.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the Section of the Act to which his remark applies?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Section 1 (4) of the 1939 Act. Under this we have now gone as far as £4,500,000 of the £5 million allowed. This form of service rendered by the Department is very much in demand by those who deal in this class of trade. What is covered by it principally is the processing abroad of United Kingdom-owned raw materials, such as raw wool and raw cotton, into the finished article, which has been undertaken on a small scale in the last two or three years. Secondly, there is what might loosely be called the export of brains—technical knowledge—especially in consultant services where a growing use is being made of British consultant firms, such as engineers, and there is some risk of nonpayment for their services. These consultant firms now often come to the Department for some form of cover against the risk involved. A third and quite valuable means of earning foreign currency is the sending abroad of contractors' equipment for use in the construction of plant which they have contracted to erect.
The third thing for which the authority of the House is required is to increase from £15 million to £30 million the amount available for external trade. That is, trade in goods which are bought abroad by a United Kingdom merchant or trader, and sold or shipped direct to a third overseas country. The United Kingdom merchants have made very considerable use of the external trade guarantees given under Section 2 of the 1945 Act, and the transactions are growing month by month. There is about £18 million worth current at the present time. So far the total of the transactions has amounted to over

£25,500,000 and the Department has an outstanding maximum liability of about £11 million worth of guarantees, leaving a margin of only £4 million to meet new business. In view of the demand for this class of business, it is necessary to ask the House to agree to a higher limit.
That is all which is covered in the Bill. It is a short and very simple Bill. Read in conjunction with the two previous Acts, it gives all that we require at present for the Export Credit Guarantees Department to function to the fullest possible extent to which the British traders want it to function. I hope the House will agree to give a speedy passage to the Bill. There is one thing I ought to tell the House. This Bill is intended as a stop-gap measure to ensure that the guarantees and the work of the Department should not have to cease or in any way be restricted during the present Session because of the nearness to the limits of liability, but I ought to tell the House that the powers given under the Export Guarantees Act are at present being reviewed, and if it is found necessary the Government will have no hesitation in introducing fresh legislation in a future Session with the object of improving still further the service available to exporters and of encouraging the maximum development of both our visible and invisible export trade.

Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend give any figures about the experience of claims and what has been the experience of Governments or traders in rights of recovery against default in payments from abroad?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. I have no figures immediately available on those points, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to give my hon. Friend any of the information he would like to have, when he replies.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of a future scheme. Will the future scheme be—and, for that matter, is the present scheme—on a voluntary basis? Are all the premiums entirely voluntary, or is there any intention to effect an export levy compulsorily on exporters?

Mr. Wilson: The schemes are entirely voluntary. It is a fact that traders are


making more and more use of the service of this Department. There are certain fields in which it may be thought that private trade would want to enter, and we are examining that and the possible service which might be provided but which cannot be provided in the absence of future legislation. All I am asking the House to do is to approve the increases in the limits of liability under the previous Acts. I am sure that this is a question which has no party content in it. The Export Credit Guarantees Department has functioned equally successfully under Governments of all political colours, and I am quite sure that the House will agree that it is something which is absolutely essential to our export trade under present conditions and which, with the good will of the House and the passage of this Bill into law, will continue to provide service for the British export trade and to render a good account of itself.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We shall, of course, give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading. If it had to be opposed, the Opposition would have had to select somebody else to do so because I have been connected with this scheme for a long time and sat on the Committee for many years before the war. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has asked about the experience. I am not sure that my figure is right but I think that at the end of 1946 the accounts showed a balance on the underwriting reserve account of just over £2 million. As far as I know, that has not been seriously eaten into since.

Mr. Bowles: I am much obliged.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know whether that figure is up to date, but I thought it might do currently. I was very glad that the President of the Board of Trade again made public—I hope it will be commented upon widely—the facilities which the scheme offers to the trader. Certainly at times it has suffered from the fact that traders were unaware of the facilities available to them, and it required and still requires some skill, to know exactly how one can insure these credit risks. I have seen the scheme from both sides. The companies with which I am now connected have been large users of it on the export of capital goods. The scheme for the electrification of the suburban system

of Rio de Janeiro was insured under this scheme.
As the President of the Board of Trade said, the outstanding total now amounts to £186 million, which carries us very near the limit allowed by Parliament. We endorse his view that the Bill should pass through all its stages as quickly as possible in order that there shall be no interruption in the facilities which the Department is able to offer to the trader. One of the reasons for requiring this increase, which the President of the Board of Trade did not mention, is the increase in prices generally which has occurred. That has to be added also to the effort which the country is making to increase exports. The Department ought to be congratulated on this occasion, upon a record of having provided a very useful service to the trading community and at the same time—if I may use such a vulgar term—having made a profit for the taxpayer up to 1946 of over £2 million. It is not intended to be primarily a profit-making affair, but the experience of the Department in underwriting these risks has been favourable. The skill with which the officials have conducted the business is a matter for congratulation. If I had not been connected with it myself, I should also have said that there was a contribution from the skill of the business men who advised them on it, but that must take a secondary place. We welcome the increase in the limits in all the classes which the President of the Board of Trade has announced today.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Just now the Minister was pointing out that the original Act was brought in in 1919 and readjusted in 1921. Very few Parliaments have been subjected to more abuse than the Parliament of those days, and it was curious that the Minister was compelled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this sound business-like administration was brought in by that Parliament of which you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and myself are the only Members present at this minute. The scheme was confirmed by that very much abused Parliament of 1939. In other words, both of those Parliaments were using their strength and power to help British trade and industry, and to protect it where possible, and the fact that the Government


were backing these exports made payment abroad more certain. That moral backing has been of immense value in trade during all those years.
I am glad to be able to congratulate the Minister on paying tribute to something done by two Governments about which, I am quite sure, if he looks back at his own speeches he will find he said that they had never done any good at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At some period I am sure he said something near that and, if he has not, he will have a lot to do to convert all the speeches of his colleagues in that respect. There is no harm in pointing out today that he has been strictly accurate in the tributes he has paid to the good work of past Parliaments.
I should like to emphasise one fact which the Minister mentioned, that a considerable sum of money has been used already for the encouragement of trade, finance and work by our traders with foreign countries. I am particularly glad that is being encouraged because that form of enterprise is much more valuable today, and it is much more important to encourage that, than some of the things which Ministers and others in the Government have done, such as killing the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. It would have been just as sensible to my mind not to have done what they are doing here, as it was to do what they did on that other occasion.
I should like to mention one point which neither the Minister nor my right hon. Friend has mentioned, namely, that it is not only the increased price of goods but the immense depreciation of sterling that has made it compulsory to have this increased sum available for distribution amongst these trades. That point should be brought forward in the House today as a justification for the higher sum of money which we are guaranteeing. Finally, may I say that owing to the skill with which the original Act was drawn, the Government have been able to administer it in such a way that, even with the present Minister, it has been run at a profit. That Act was drawn during the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who is so often abused by the Government for what has been done in the past. It just shows that if anything is to be run by the State, Conservative Ministers are needed to build up and run the scheme.

I hope I have been able to say a few things which may cheer the Minister, because of the fact that he has at last done something good, by following the administration of Conservatives who went before him in office.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am not surprised that the Minister has had to come to the House for these extensions of export guarantees. Indeed, the only thing which surprises me is that it has not been necessary to extend the cover earlier. When a considerable Debate took place on the Second Reading of the 1945 Act it was anticipated, as he said, not only by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but by many others, that it would be necessary to raise this cover. It is perhaps a little disappointing that it has not been necessary to do so before, because, since that time, there is no doubt that the importance of exports has become all the more evident, and the importance of doing anything we can to assist them is much clearer.
I do not think there is anything controversial about the Measure before us, but I hope that, before we close this Second Reading Debate whoever replies will take the opportunity of giving us a little more information about how this process is working, although we have just heard from the President of the Board of Trade that the matter is under review. It follows from the fact that exports are more important than ever, that we can afford bad debts abroad less than ever. We can afford bad debts even less than was envisaged in 1945, and I am wondering whether, when the Department is fixing premiums, they take this into account, and whether they have any policy for fixing a higher premium where they think there is likely to be a bad debt, which would be against the interests of this country in the present delicate position of the balance of payments. My second point is with regard to the direction of exports. When the 1945 Act received its Second Reading, an undertaking was given that premiums should not be used in any way to try to effect a direction of exports, and I should be glad to know whether that still holds good.
There has been some complaint about the time taken in certain cases


where application has been made for a guarantee, and in view of the importance of speeding up our exports as much as possible, I should be glad to hear something about what steps have been taken to try to obviate these delays. The President of the Board of Trade made some reference to the amount by which consumer goods were helped under these Measures in the past, and I hope we shall be given some figure showing how far they are being used today for the purposes of consumer goods and how far they are being used for capital goods. In 1945 the proportion was something like six or ten to one in favour of consumer goods.
How far are the smaller firms coming in on this? Again, there has been a criticism that it has helped the larger firms rather too much and the smaller firms rather too little. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how far he has been able to extend these services to the smaller firms which often require them more. I am sure we shall all welcome the assurance that this machinery is under review, and I hope the opportunity will be taken to clear up some defects in the machinery which have manifested themselves.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Rhodes: I should like to congratulate the Minister on this efficient Department of which I have had some experience in recent weeks. I think it is true to say, that it is the smaller firms which require encouragement in the export drive today because generally the bigger firms are already contributing to exports as much as they are able. According to a report issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories, I believe last year, there were 129,000 factories in the country employing too or less, and only 11,000 employing over too. These figures serve as a guide to the importance of the small to medium firms. These firms are loosely knit into associations or federations or have no connection with either. Talks given to such associations on the advantage of export facilities often escape the notice of the small to medium manufacturers.
Therefore, the Department's representatives must go right down to the individual manufacturers to sell their insurance. They go, either on their own two feet, or by bus, car, or train, or by

motorcar provided by the nearest Government car pool. If the provincial office of the Department is in a city with a car pool, fairly satisfactory arrangements can be made; but where a car pool does not exist in the same city, or where a large territory is covered by one man, the car pool is of little use. The result is that highly trained men, through no fault of their own, are wasting many hours each week. In many cases their calls could be doubled if they had cars of their own or if cars were provided for the use of the Department. Private firms do not provide cars for the salesman for nothing and I suggest that it would be good business policy to provide the cars where they are badly needed.
I should like to know if it would be possible to issue a yearly report on the progress of the Department. Such a report might show the amount of cover provided during the year, the amount outstanding, classification of policies by time, and destinations of exports. I think that this type of information is already prepared for the Advisory Council, so it should not be too onerous for the Department or the Minister to make it available to the House. The President referred to certain transactions taking place with Eastern Europe. Do those transactions come under the special guarantees? They are referred to in the Estimates but no special reference is made to them in the trading accounts and balance sheets. I shall be glad to have a reply to this question and to know also the balance held at the end of March of this year.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: As the President of the Board of Trade said when introducing this Measure, all parties in some way or another have subscribed to this idea, and the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was responsible for introducing it in 1945. There can be no question, therefore, regarding the Bill's speedy passage through the House today. I am glad that the President made it clear, in reply to my question, that it is a voluntary scheme. I have heard it suggested in certain quarters that it was the thin end of the wedge, the prelude to a future scheme which would impose a compulsory premium on all exporters, and was in effect, the Government's method of controlling export


policy. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has dispelled any fears in that direction. Only yesterday he said:
British exports are passing into the phase where they are no longer limited by production, but by selling methods and the extent to which overseas markets are open to our goods. This year is a testing year for our export drive. We need more surveys in every market.
I am glad to see that what some of us have been trying to say for two years to the Board of Trade is now realised. That fact alone would be a justification for this increase today from £200 million to £300 million. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increasing risk in licensing in the importing countries and the right hon. Member for Aldershot referred to increased prices. These two things alone mean that we shall require more money to carry out this scheme.
I want to raise one point which affects the most important aspect—our exports to the hard currency or dollar markets from which we are importing food and raw materials. One of the difficulties there is the time lag in delivery. Importers are complaining at the length of time between the taking of the order and the delivery of the goods. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that some exporters have been trying a new and very important scheme to deal with this problem. If it is successful I hope it will be extended. The question arises whether this Export Guarantee Scheme is the proper way to deal with the criticisms that there is too great a time lag, that prices change and so on, before the goods are delivered.
To deal with this question some manufacturers have been exporting to warehouses abroad rather than to a customer. Through their salesman in a particular country to which they are exporting they learn of the trend of requirements and export in bulk to a warehouse in that particular hard currency area. The salesman there sells direct from the warehouse. He takes his sample and tells his customer that he can deliver the goods within a week. The Minister has heard of this scheme before and I believe several of our large exporting firms have tried it out.
The question arises whether or not it is too heavy a financial risk for our exporters to take in exporting to warehouses abroad and then selling from bulk stock to the customer, and whether they

are able to take that risk as an ordinary commercial transaction. I should like the President to say whether this scheme has met with success, and if so, whether it could be extended in a general way to exporters under the present scheme.
The President referred to capital goods. We all know that the emphasis in the future will be on the coming switch from consumer to capital goods. The Chancellor the other day referred to some dislocation, and dislocation there must be. Much as we hate controls, much as some hon. Members may not like this type of planning, we must look ahead and face this problem in its early stages so that we shall not be subject to too severe dislocation later. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to use this scheme to the full if the tremendous change-over from the export of consumer goods to capital goods has to be made.

4.39 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must join in congratulating the Government on this Measure. In my case, however, there are a number of questions which I want to ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade who, I understand, will be replying. I must admit that I am very disappointed in the allocation made to the re-export trade. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to the figures he will see that when this guarantee was first introduced in 1939 £7½ million was allotted. That sum in the years which have since gone by has been increased to only £15 million. On the other hand, for processing goods abroad in 1939 £2½ million was allocated and that has gone up to £15 million. It is obvious that the emphasis has been put rather on processing abroad than on re-exporting goods. It is appreciated throughout the House how much the industrial welfare of this country has depended on accepting raw materials, or even half finished goods, and then completing their manufacture and re-exporting them, and I therefore feel rather worried that this Bill only doubles the amount for re-exports, but allocates something like six or seven times the amount originally laid aside for processing abroad.
Under Section 4 of the 1939 Act, £10 million was laid aside by the Government,
for any purposes of establishing any trade or any branch of trade between the United Kingdom and any country.


Later in 1939, under the Overseas Trade Guarantee Act, that £10 million was increased to £60 million, so that there is a large sum of £50 million over and above whatever we may be discussing this afternoon. I should like to know how that sum is being used. I should also like to know whether it overlaps the other two guarantees—in respect of processing abroad and for the re-export trade. If it does not overlap, can the Parliamentary Secretary say for what that credit is being used?
If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at the excellent pamphlet produced by his Department entitled "Government Guarantees for Exporters," he will see a paragraph devoted to the risks not covered. Amongst these are the following:
(iii) The risk that loss may result from causes which are within the control of the exporter or the buyer.
It seems very odd that this Department will not cover anything which is within the control of the buyer at the other end. Surely the main purpose should be to protect the British exporter against what may happen through no fault of his own if the buyer the other end defaults. As I read it, that paragraph means that if the buyer for any reason defaults the Export Guarantees Department will not cover the loss.
The document goes on to say:
(iv) the risk that because of a slump in prices or other unfavourable factor a solvent buyer may refuse to take delivery of goods he has ordered.
I understood from the President of the Board of Trade that that is just the type of case envisaged in the 1945 Act and for which he was asking additional powers this afternoon. I should like to have that point cleared up. There is also the risk that fluctuations in exchange may cause loss of sales made in foreign currency. That seems a great pity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are no forward exchange markets at the moment and similar arbitrage cannot go on. It seems most important that these risks on loss by foreign exchange and fluctuations in the rate of exchange should be covered. It is particularly important in view of what the President says about introducing fresh legislation that he should give an undertaking to reconsider that point.
This Exports Guarantee Department asks for premiums which range from a quarter to two per cent., and in the handbook it says that the range of premiums rightly depends on the country to which the exporter wishes to send his goods. Those rates seem very high indeed. That is borne out by the fact that a sum of £2 million now stands to the credit of this account. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some indication of whether the Government are going to reduce those rates. It seems quite unnecessary to have rates so high. They provide an unnecessary surplus in an organisation which is a non-profit making organisation.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary also review the percentage of cover which the Department gives? At the moment they will not give more than 85 per cent., or 90 per cent. of the risk. They lay down that it is right for a particular exporter to carry a portion of the risk. From the point of view of the service given to the community they should be willing—I should think only too willing—to take the whole risk.
Finally, I think the President would be the first to admit that before leaving this Debate we should stress the services which can be given by the Export Guarantees Department in the way of information. They have something like 50,000 reports on firms in all parts of the world. The President would agree that we should stress the amount of information available to anyone considering exporting to any part of the world. This is a service which any industrialist has only to sample in order to know its worth. With those criticisms, I add my support to the Bill.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: There is a question I wish to ask in all simplicity, ignorance and sincerity. Is this scheme available to those traders who export in place of capital or consumer goods the produce of their brains? I do not know whether they are counted as capital or consumer goods; but I assume they are capital. I am thinking, not unnaturally, of the author, who may very easily find that his foreign purchaser defaults and that his accumulated royalties are not forthcoming when they are due. This has happened over and over again. Authors'


royalties and his sale or hire of his copyright are not an unimportant item of our invisible exports. I should be glad to know if authors can cover themselves under this scheme against the risk of such default.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The President of the Board of Trade has had a very comfortable innings; in fact, no Minister in this Administration has had such an easy time since he has taken office as the President of the Board of Trade. That is largely because there is a clash between the President of the Board of Trade and the Government. On the one hand, the Government are trying to pull the industries of the country to pieces, while on the other hand the President is doing a rather weak and methodical best to pull them together. There are very few things on which we have to speak harshly to him because we feel that, in a Government opposed to the main means by which the country earns its livelihood, he is doing his best.
I wonder whether the Bill has had the approval of all the Ministers in the Government? It will be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us, for example, what the Minister of Health has said about this Bill. In 1945 the Minister of Health wrote a little book about which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has heard. Appropriately, it had a yellow back, and in the book the Minister said:
By some twist of the Tory mind it is said that it is good trade to persuade someone in a remote part of the world to buy our goods. We are told by some people who ought to know better that we shall need to increase our exports after the war by 50 per cent.
That was the view held by the Minister of Health. I wonder what are his views today on exports and on this Bill. The present Secretary of State for War was just as emphatic, for he said in 1945:
Increased exports are demanded. There was never a greater fallacy uttered in this or any other assembly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 398.]
I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to tell us that he has been in touch with his right hon. Friends, and that, having renounced the heresies of 1945, they now take a view more in accordance with the line so long advocated on this side of the House.
The President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced this Bill in a commendably short speech, was guilty of a slight harshness towards private enterprise, because he said that this was a risk undertaken by a Government Department which was not undertaken by private enterprise. That is an unreasonable statement to make, because the Board of Trade have not allowed a selection of risk. We cannot go as we could to the ordinary insurance company and select a risk. One of the major defects of this Bill, so far as the traders are concerned, is that one must insure the whole of one's export trade and one cannot take risks against which one wishes to insure. In those circumstances it is quite easy to say that it is better than private enterprise can do, but, in fact, it falls very far short of what insurance companies will do in terms of risk.
The President was also unfair when he said that this is something entirely outside private enterprise. He has the experts of the Advisory Council, which is composed of wicked individuals like bankers and industrialists. It is true that each of these applications is, in fact, vetted by this Council so that even this Department at once admits the immense good it receives from the assistance which private enterprise gives to it. The President of the Board of Trade opened his speech by stating that the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had anticipated an increase in the sum to be covered by the Bill. The President did not tell the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy also said that he felt that export prices would decline from 1945. Certainly that has not turned out to be a fact, and we have one more example of how unreliable is the present Chancellor of the Duchy as a prophet, or in anything connected with finance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was also brief in his comments on this Bill, and I felt that he had the impression that he was so much connected with it that it would be immodest for him to pour praise upon it; but we feel that this is a Bill of great value and that the scheme has been running so long with so little complaint that the Bill is something we can take without any risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) stressed an exceptionally interesting point,


in which he was supported by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), when he said that this Bill ought to give some cover for our invisible exports. It is very vital that we should do all we can to stimulate invisible exports, because they are the exports we can achieve without importing anything. Therefore, they are, in effect, a greater gain to us in terms of real exports than any other form of activity. We hope to hear how under this Bill steps are being taken by the Government to stimulate invisible exports. In the old days before 1945, the man who was a capitalist was wicked, but the most wicked of all capitalists was the capitalist who invested his money overseas. That is a tale with which hon. Members opposite will no doubt be familiar.
Today we are bewailing the fact that there are not sufficient people with money invested overseas, and we are seeing a most serious decline in the net revenue from overseas investments. In fact, we pay so much money out, including the interest on blocked sterling balances, that I believe our net return from investments is hardly of any value at all. That is something to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, and we are rather sorry that the provision for catering for trade other than that which has originated from this country, is as small as it is. It indicates that the Government have no plans for any substantial expansion of our essential, invisible export trade.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was his usual practical self. He was so practical that I cannot understand why he is on that side of the House. He pointed out that small firms did not know much about these schemes, and that the facilities of the Department should be concentrated on bringing to the attention of those small firms the service it can render. I agree and I am sure that more publicity for this scheme would result in a wider use being made of it, particularly by those firms which previously did not engage in the export trade. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch raised a number of interesting points which I should have raised myself had he not dealt with them. I am to a great extent indebted to him. The Secretary for

Overseas Trade will be doing a service to the House if he will explain to some extent the mechanism of this scheme, because all too few know the principle on which it works.
We on this side of the House welcome the increase in the amount of money which the Bill guarantees. We hope that our export trade will be such in the year to come as will justify this increase. We hope we are going to see no recession in our export trade, and that the Department will do all it can to publicise all its activities so that, more and more, the traders in this country will take advantage of the service. We give a very enthusiastic welcome to this Bill on Second Reading, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to bring in Bills of this nature which will assist the trade of this country.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The general tone of the discussion indicates that this is a good Bill. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) should upset the harmony, but that is usual and we expect it from both of them. We are not unduly disappointed. I want to pay my tribute to the members of the Advisory Council. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, they are a group of business men and other interests, including the trade unions, who give of their best, and so enable this guarantees scheme to work properly. We all ought to pay tribute to Sir William Goodenough, who was Chairman for a long time but whose health has now broken down, so that he had had to give up the job. We look to a great stewardship under Mr. Geoffrey Gibbs, who has taken over the job. I should also like to pay a tribute to the Department for the work it does; I have met many business men who get assistance from it, and they all tell me what fine work is being done. I am sure the House likes to hear of such tributes.
With regard to the questions which have been raised, I shall deal with them as best I can, and if I miss any of them I am sure that hon. Members will be quick to tell me which points I have overlooked. Regarding the type of goods covered by the Department, there is at


the moment cover for £186 million worth of goods. The value of the policies issued in 1947–48 was, for exports, £170 million, and for external trade, £16 million. Of that export figure, roughly 90 per cent. was for consumer goods and 10 per cent. for capital goods. The £16 million for external trade was wholly in respect of consumer goods—mainly raw materials. The terms of payment ranged from cash against documents to about 90 days credit. In very exceptional circumstances credit can be given for six months. Policies for capital goods are of a different character, because very often they have to be carried over perhaps one, two or three years because of the terms of delivery. Where credit has been necessary, very often the exporter has been able to get 50 or 60 per cent. payment by the time the goods are shipped and credit is therefore given for the balances of 40 or 50 per cent. It might happen that the full percentage guarantee would be given in the case of goods covered for business in the current year.
The premium has been fixed in such a way that it takes into account all the risks. Not only are there commercial risks, but there are political risks. It would be essential in the case of some geographical areas to be a little more careful than in others, and for that reason the individual rates do vary. They vary according to the risks, both commercial and political, and they normally cover the whole of an exporter's overseas business to a reasonable number of countries. Over the business as a whole—and here one has to be careful in quoting figures in case someone says they paid more than that—the average premium is about 15s. on the total turnover.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Per £100?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, per cent. I was asked what were our losses. Our loss experience arose chiefly from the war. We paid out something like £5 million in claims, and something like £1½ million has been recovered since the end of the war. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked me about re-exports. In connection with re-exports, the suggestion was that we have not made provision to cover them or to cover the amount that might be needed. I can only say in that connection that the demand has been met and there seems to be no

purpose in pushing up the figure higher unless it appears necessary to do so. Where it is a question of goods coming into this country for processing and subsequent export, such goods should be considered as direct exports rather than re-exports.
With regard to the point about the direction of exports, we cannot do that. Our job is to cover risks. The hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked whether there was a delay in assessing premiums. We are constantly trying to give prompter service and we generally meet requirements within 48 hours, which I think is quite good going. We do not always manage this, but it is our endeavour, and in the main it is being achieved. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch raised the question of the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act. Of that figure he quoted only £10 million has been used, and during the period since the war, only £2½ million of this figure, so there again it will be seen that we have a fund available to meet trade guarantees.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: My point really was that I could not see how this guarantee differs from those given under the Export Guarantees Act and why these funds were not used by the Government for the purpose of the Export Guarantees Act, leaving this one aside.

Mr. Bottomley: I think the answer is that there are different kinds of risks involved and for that reason different funds are necessary.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the difference is? That is the question I asked him.

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the difference is, but if he will give me the opportunity of sending the information to him, I will do so with pleasure.
The point was raised as to how many policies had been taken out, or how many are out at the present time. I cannot give the precise figure, but it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000. As I have said already they are taken out within a very short time.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) raised the point about the export of brains. We certainly do encourage that. Before the war we did not have


a lot of business in that direction. That is not to say that we did not have the brains to export, but we found that we had many overseas invisible exports which helped us to pay our way. Because we have lost many of these invisible exports, the need today is to encourage the export of brains and to get as many people to go overseas as possible and sell their "know-how." The more we can get to go, the better business it is for us. Supposing that a particular job is to be done, e.g., the building of a tunnel, then people with "know-how" go along from different countries and offer their services. A certain sum of money is given to each of them as expenses for having incurred the trouble to go and give their advice and for tenders. The successful man who comes, we hope, from the United Kingdom, does not get his pay until the contract has been completed, or even the whole job finished. Therefore, it is not fair to ask him to take the whole of that risk, bearing in mind that because of commercial or political changes the job may not be completed. The Department covers the contingency that he might give his expert knowledge and receive nothing in return. In this way the export of brains is encouraged.

Mr. E. P. Smith: It has been an excellent and more informing dissertation to which the hon. Gentleman has treated us, but I did ask specifically about the accumulated royalties of an author in foreign countries, supposing those royalties were defaulted upon. The sum may be unknown. It may be large or small. But has the author a chance of insuring under this scheme on the principle of a floating policy?

Mr. Bottomley: We would like to look at that from the point of taking a risk. If the author is prepared to pay a premium on the basis that in the future he may have a potential income of so much, the Department will have a look at it. What we cannot do is, after there has been a default, to accept that liability. That, of course, would be bad business. I think I have answered the points that were put, and I might end by saying that we have a reserve. One right hon. Gentleman did ask whether we should have it. I would say, yes. The reserve today is a very reasonable sum. It is £4¼ million, a little more than just before the war.

The figures that were mentioned earlier are low, compared with the actual figures. The Department's liability for guarantees before the war was about £30 million. Today, the liability is £130 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that unsettled conditions abroad and other difficulties that we encounter today entitle us to say that a reserve of about 3 per cent. on outstanding liability is not to be considered excessive and should in no way be taken to indicate that the existing premium rates are too high.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures from 1943 to 1946, he will see that the losses were about £5,000 a year. How can he, therefore, justify a reserve fund of £500,000?

Mr. Bottomley: I mentioned a reserve fund, but in fact the whole of the money goes to the Exchequer. What they have now is a loss. They have to take the whole of the risk which, during the last year, was indeed great. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels that we cannot justify that risk in present world conditions, I am bound to say that I disagree with him. We cannot take unnecessary risks, and the three per cent. on all outstanding debts is not excessive.

Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman has answered the questions put by Members opposite, but he has ignored mine entirely. I asked him to consult with his opposite number in the Treasury about the use of cars for people who had to get the work. What about the annual report? I mentioned that. Another question was about the balance at 31st March this year. It was £2,400,000 at the end of March, 1946. I was interested to hear that 2,000 firms had insured under this guarantee and that 600 of them live in Yorkshire. It is certain that 600 Yorkshiremen cannot be wrong, and they ask the rest of the country to follow suit quickly.

Mr. Bottomley: I have not answered the points put by my hon. Friend. I agree with what has been said about him already, that he is practical-minded. I assure him that the observations he made are noted. We shall consult with the Treasury about cars. I have already mentioned the reserve figure—which answers his second question. I am in complete


agreement on his third point. There is no need to answer points unless they call for comment. I hope the House is now ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Digby: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the extent to which small firms are using this scheme. It has been referred to by an hon. Member opposite as well as by myself and is a most important matter for our exports.

Mr. Bottomley: Every endeavour is being made to get small firms to use these facilities. Every potential exporter who comes for advice about export guarantees is encouraged, and the Department do all they can to assist him.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, and the Export Guarantees Act, 1945 (called below 'the new Act,' 'the 5939 Act' and the '1945 Act') by increasing the limits on the liability which may be undertaken by guarantees given under section one of the 1939 Act or section two of the 1945 Act, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which by virtue of the 1939 Act and the 1945 Act are to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament or the Consolidated Fund, or are to be paid into the Exchequer, being an increase attributable to the new Act raising—

(a) to three hundred million pounds the limit in respect of all the said guarantees;
(b) to fifteen million pounds the limit in respect of those under subsection (4) of section one of the 199 Act;
(c) to thirty million pounds the limit in respect of those under section two of the 1945 Act."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

5.14 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I have so often criticised Financial Resolutions, and rightly, that I am glad now for once, and again rightly, to be able to say that I approve of this Resolution. It guarantees the provision of additional money, partly because of the terrible depreciation in the value of the £ due to the policy of

the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to justify this very heavy raising of the amount of the guarantee by something like £100 million for encouraging our export trade, which is of great value. This process is carried out on thoroughly sound and businesslike lines, first of all, under the Act of 1911, as followed in 1921. The Motion refers to the Act of 1939. All those were sound measures of administration. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that they need have no compunction in supporting this Motion. Unlike most of the Financial Resolutions they propose, this one, as the Minister has admitted earlier in the afternoon, is for the purpose of carrying out the sound, practical, sensible legislation which results from having a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. It has been abused by one of the least intelligent Ministers, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, the Minister of Health.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to payment of compensation for improvements.")

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, after "tenant," to insert "of a holding."

5.19 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed to make it clear that the provisions of the Clause apply only to tenants of holdings to which Part I of the Bill relates.

CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 17, leave out from beginning to "unless" and insert:
Compensation shall not be recoverable—

(a) under subsection (1) or subsection (4) of this section in any case where the lease was entered into after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, or
(b) under and in accordance with any lease entered into after the commencement of this Part of this Act."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is designed to give effect to the intention of the Government to safeguard the present rights of landlords to claim compensation for deterioration under existing leases.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30, at end, insert:
and shall have effect subject to such modifications (if any) as may be so specified.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) during the proceedings on the Report stage in this House.

CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation for disturbance.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 44, after "grazing" insert:
or of keeping in his own occupation.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As originally drafted, this Clause provided that compensation for disturbance should not be payable in the case of permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing and which has been let to a tenant for a limited period in order that he may put it through a cropping rotation before sowing it back to grass. There is, in principle, no difference between permanent pasture which a landlord has let annually for seasonal grazing and permanent pasture which he has retained in his own hands for grazing purposes. In both cases, the subsequent lets for a rotation of cropping are made in identical circumstances. The effect of the Amendment is to treat both cases on all-fours as regards compensation for disturbance.

Mr. Snadden: Does this cover the case of a landlord who might have let his parks for cropping because he had no implements? Does it bring such land into the same category as land let for grazing?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, that is so.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 5, leave out "six" and insert "nine."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment to bring the period of six months stipulated in Clause 5 (7) into line with the period of nine months stipulated in Clause 5 (1, a).

CLAUSE 11.—(Variation of rent of holdings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 5, leave out "of an arbiter."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in cases where arbitration as to the rent of a holding is undertaken by the Land Court instead of by an arbiter, the date of any direction by the court that the rent of the holding should continue unchanged should rank as the commencement of the five-year period which must elapse before it is competent for the tenant to apply again for a revision of the rent.

CLAUSE 16.—(Leases to continue in force notwithstanding variation of terms, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 48, after "only" insert:
that any new term has been added to the lease or.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is designed to avoid any possible doubt as to the scope of the Clause. The Clause provides that the lease of a holding shall not be deemed to have been brought to an end by reason only that any of its terms have been varied or reduced in pursuance of any provision of Part I of the Bill. During the Report stage in this House doubt was expressed whether the Clause covered the case where a new term is added to the


lease by an arbiter in accordance with the provisions of Clause 14. This doubt is removed by the Amendment.

CLAUSE 25.—(Construction, citation and application of Part I.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 21, at end, insert:
(3) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply.

Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Government regard this Amendment as being both unnecessary and undesirable. The application of Part I of the Bill, which must be read as part of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, is defined in those Acts, as amended by the Ninth Schedule of the Bill. Those Acts, as amended by the Bill, apply generally only to agricultural land held under a lease. Landholders' holdings are not held under a lease but under statutory tenure. Further definition of the scope of Part I is, therefore, unnecessary, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has sought to disagree with this Amendment, and I am still more surprised that he has not told us in greater detail why he takes that view. I will try to put the points which occur to me, and no doubt the Lord Advocate will deal with them. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of a holding. It might be as well that I should deal with what seem to be the points so that the Lord Advocate may inform me if I have left anything out. At the moment, until this Bill becomes law, a holding is defined as any piece of land agricultural or pastural held under a lease. In page 85 of this Bill the word "holding" is redefined, but the definition does not seem to be substantially altered. The word "holding" will now mean:
… the aggregate of the agricultural land, as defined in Part VII of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, comprised in a lease.
In page 64 of the Bill it is stated:
'agricultural land' means land used for agriculture which is so used for the purpose of a trade or business …
It may be that some smallholders do not use their land for the purpose of a trade

or business, but certainly a great many do. It is their business to make a livelihood off their holdings and, therefore, they are not excluded by that definition.
Then the Joint Under-Secretary tells us, "No smallholder holds under a lease." That is quite definitely not so, because there is a class of statutory small tenants and though it is a diminishing class it would be news to me to be told that there are none of them left in the country. The Small Landholders Act makes clear the right of a statutory small tenant to get a renewal of his lease. I do not think that the Lord Advocate will tell us that there is any possible way of holding that a statutory small tenant does not hold under a lease. So far as he is concerned, unless this Amendment is accepted, he will be comprised under Part I of this Bill, as I see it. I do not want to be too dogmatic on this question because the matter is extremely complicated. Although once I knew a fair amount about this department of the law, I do not profess to have the details at my finger tips. I have looked up the matter in the time available, and I cannot see any answer to the point that statutory small tenants are undoubtedly comprised within Part I of this Bill unless they are excluded, and I understand that the intention of the Government is to exclude them. I agree that they are a small class. Most smallholders are landholders.
As I understand the position, landholders are in one or other of two positions. They may have been put on the land under the terms of a scheme, and, probably, there is then no contract, and never was a contract between the landholder and his landlord, and there never was a lease. It may be that landholders in that position are not holding under a lease, but under a scheme settled by the Land Court, and, therefore, it might be that they are not under Part I of this Bill, but even these people pay a rent. Normally, one takes the view that, if one pays rent, one does so because one holds under a lease, not necessarily a lease under the traditional Scottish Law form of lease. A lease is the tenure under which any tenant holds of his landlord, and, accordingly, I have some doubts in feeling certain that, even in a case where the landholder never had a lease from his landlord in the ordinary accepted sense, Part I does not apply to him.
5.30 p.m.
There is, however, another very extensive class of landholder. There are the landholders who held under a common law lease, or whose ancestors did and they themselves inherited it, and I should have thought it was at least arguable that what the Landholders Act did was not to bring that lease to an end suddenly on the passing of that Act, but to engraft on it certain statutory provisions and rights somewhat analogous to the case of the Rent Restriction Acts. The tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts has very much more extensive and valuable rights than the tenant under the common law. Nobody can suppose that the effect of these Acts was to supersede his lease by some entirely new form of tenure. That was not so, and, although I confess I have not studied it line by line since this matter came up, I do not find anything in the Small Landholders Act to support that, and I should be interested to hear from the Lord Advocate what Section of the Small Landholders Act resulted in the previously existing leases of people who came under that Act being suddenly brought to an end, because that must be the case on which this new Subsection is thought to be unnecessary.
I cannot remember any commentator on that Act ever having drawn attention to the fact that that Act brought all previous leases to an end, and I should have thought that it was rather more in accordance with ordinary principles of interpretation to hold that the leases of the people then occupying as tenants small areas of agricultural land in Scotland were continued, but subject to the rights engrafted on to their tenure by the Small Landholders Act. If there is any doubt about it, why could not that doubt be resolved?
It is not enough for the Lord Advocate to say "In my opinion, there is little doubt about it." I think what he has to say, before he asks us to reject this Amendment, is this: "It is as clear as daylight that this is unnecessary, and no practitioner in Scotland and no court could possibly hold the contrary." Unless he can go as far as that, what objection could there be to putting into the Bill two or three lines of print to make the matter clear beyond a doubt? I did not understand from anything which the

Under-Secretary has said that putting in these words would do any harm. All the hon. Gentleman said was that they are unnecessary.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): And undesirable.

Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman said they were undesirable, but he did not tell us why, although I know that anything which is unnecessary is undesirable. They can only be undesirable because they throw some other part of the law into doubt. I think I can leave out the Crofters' Acts, which may raise certain other points, because I am not so familiar with them and they applied only td a part of Scotland. I would prefer to base my argument on those people brought in in 1911 for the first time—the small landholders in those parts of Scotland to which the old Crofters' Acts did not apply. It is perfectly true that, so far as any of us know, none of these people since 1911 have ever appealed to the Agricultural Holdings Act for any benefit to themselves. No doubt, it may be suggested that, because of that, the Agricultural Holdings Act was generally recognised as not applying to them.
I do not believe that is the explanation at all, because there was such a disparity after 1911 between the rights open to a small landholder and the rights open to any ordinary agricultural tenant, that it would never have been any good, so far as I can see, for a small landholder to appeal to the Agricultural Holdings Acts, because he would not have got any more out of it than he was already getting under the Small Landholders Act. Therefore, I think there is at least a case for saying that, throughout that period, the small landholder could have appealed to the Agricultural Holdings Act if he had chosen, but that it would never be worth his while to do so. Now, of course, the case is very different, because there may be instances in which, if Part I of this Bill applies to small landholders, it would be very much in the interests of the small landholder to appeal to Part I of this Bill.
Let me indicate a course which he may take, and I am sure there are others. Under the Small Landholders Act, a man can only bequeath his holding to a member of his own family in the widest sense; that is, to a person who could succeed


on intestacy. The small landholder may frequently wish to bequeath his holding to someone other than a member of his family, and, if Part I of this Bill applies and if the other Agricultural Holdings Acts also apply, it becomes of some value to the small landholder to bequeath his holding to somebody outside his family. Before security was given by Part I of this Bill, that right never had any value, because all the new legatee would become would be a tenant from year to year, outside the protection of the Small Landholders Act; he could have been turned out the next year, and so it would never have been worth his while to do that.
If the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts with regard to bequests apply to landholders, there is great security of tenure now given to the ordinary agricultural tenant under Part I of this Bill, and it will be worth the while of the landholder, and certainly of the statutory small tenant, to bequeath his holding as an ordinary common law tenancy to, let us say, some friend of his who was not a relative, or to some relative on the maternal side who could not succeed on intestacy.
I am sure this is of great importance to many people in the Highlands, and it is highly desirable that it should be made quite clear. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the point. Let us suppose that we have a person who was an ordinary common law tenant of his small holding in 1911 who came under the protection of the statutory code for the first time in 1911, and who dies after this Bill has become law. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite satisfied that the 1911 Act completely abolished his previous year to year tenancy under the statutory code, and that his successor cannot now say "That landholder has held throughout under a tenancy, fortified no doubt by the Small Landholders Acts; that tenancy is still there; the landholder has chosen to bequeath it to me; I am not a member of his family, but I am entitled to the rights under the Agricultural Holdings Act"? That is a very practical point, and, as far as I understand the law at the moment, I do not think that I would advise anybody that there was no case at all for that legatee. I should have some difficulty in giving that advice. I might well be wrong, and, having studied the matter further, I might say "The

matter is doubtful, I really do not quite know; I think, on the whole, perhaps you are not entitled." But I think I should have to say, "There is a chance that you are entitled." If that is so, there would have to be expensive litigation, going to the Court of Session, and all the rest of it. We avoid all that by putting these three lines into the Bill.
My next point arises on Clauses 13 and 14. Suppose there is a case where some small landholder, or a statutory small tenant, applies under Clause 14; let us say a statutory small tenant at the end of his lease. I do not know that the 1911 Act ever said that if a statutory small tenant fails to make the statutory application for renewal of his lease, he thereupon ceases to have any right to occupy. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks up a somewhat debatable case which was decided in 1913, I think he will find that the Court of Session took the view that a statutory small tenant was perfectly entitled to continue occupying, although he had not in fact asked for a renewal of his statutory tenancy. I think I am right about that; but, in any case, the matter is very obscure.
What would happen? He would come forward and would say, under Clause 14, "I want a new lease," and he would thereby bring into operation Clause 13. Under Clause 13 there are extensive provisions under which a landlord is bound to put everything in order. Even if that does not apply, in every case thereafter the landlord is bound to keep the equipment in order. Of course that is wholly at variance with the whole conception of the Small Landholders Acts, and I can see a good deal of doubt arising. What the true view may be, I am by no means too sure, but I can see a good deal of room for legal argument and disputation.
I do not want to prolong this discussion. I have put at least two of the points which seemed to me to give rise to difficulty. I will sum up in this way. First, are there still such people as statutory small tenants in existence? Secondly, if there are, how can it be said that the definition of "holding" under this Bill does not apply to them? Thirdly, is the Lord Advocate quite satisfied that a person who held under an ordinary tenancy in 1911 and was drawn into the ambit of the 1911 Act, ceased from the passing of that Act to have any tenancy under


a lease at all? I do not think "lease" is defined in any of this range of legislation, and I think it must, therefore, have a very wide meaning. I ask the Lord Advocate on what grounds he holds that no small landholder can possibly be the tenant under a lease.
The Lord Advocate may have conclusive answers to these questions. If he has, we shall be convinoed that the Amendment is unnecessary, but I have not heard those answers given by anybody. I have not been able to discover them by my own researches, and there is a good deal of doubt about this in many quarters. I should have thought that the wise thing to do, even if one were of the opinion that the matter is pretty clear, would be to make it clear beyond doubt by putting these words into the Bill. Finally, I ask the Lord Advocate in what respect would it be undesirable to put these words into the Bill? Upon what other rights would they throw doubt? Whom would those words embarrass? Unless he can tell us either that they would embarrass somebody or that they would throw doubt on some other rights, I cannot see why it is undesirable to adopt the Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
This has been subject to a good deal of discussion. I am bound to plead guilty to this extent, that thinking of other matters it certainly did not occur to me in the course of the Committee stage that this point would arise. I plead guilty and acknowledge that it would have been much better if the point had occurred to me or to someone so that we could have had the matter cleared up in the Committee stage. It just shows that even a full examination—which I must agree this Bill has received—does not always bring out all the possible points. This point has been raised at a rather late stage, in circumstances which made it difficult perhaps to give a full explanation, but this is not the first time it has come up, and we have not yet had any statement of a technical character to show why this Amendment is unnecessary or how the matter is free beyond the possibility of a doubt. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept these words in order that there may not be doubt, false hopes and expensive litigation in Scotland. I gravely fear that

these things will happen unless the matter is made perfectly clear.

Mr. Snadden: I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes on this rather complicated legal point. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I feel a little guilty that at an earlier stage we did not go into this matter more thoroughly. I must confess that I thought when we were considering the Bill in its early stages that the Crofters Act of 1866 and the separate code that applies to small landholders covered the case of the crofters, and for that reason I assumed that this Bill would not apply to those holdings. Since then we have had a long discussion in another place, and one or two tricky points have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend.
I shall not attempt to say much on the legal aspect. I would only make a broad point from the point of view of the practical person who has to administer and who comes under this very important Bill. I think we must try, as they have tried in another place in sending this Amendment to us, to make this Bill as clear as possible, and we must, therefore, assume that it will be read not only by farmers all over the country but also by crofters. If there is any doubt about the application of Part I to the statutory small landholders, surely that doubt should be removed at this stage. I should like to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, to this extent that I Think the Lord Advocate should tell us now the reasons for rejecting this Amendment.
I can only think that if the Government take the view—and I am sure they do take the view—that Part I of the Bill is not to apply to the crofters, there must be some very good reason for not putting into the Bill something which would wipe out all doubts in the minds of the people who are to come under it. What it is I do not know. I can only assume that possibly in some previous legislation some benefits have been conferred upon the small land-holders, and it may be, for all I know, that by inserting these words in the Bill something might be lost in that respect. If that is the reason I hope the Lord Advocate will give a full reply and show why it is impossible for the Government to put


these words in the Bill to make the Act crystal clear to all the people who have to come under it.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I see that the Lord Advocate is getting his notes ready for reply and I do not wish to detain the House long, but I am anxious to find out where the crofters stand under Part I of this Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Glasgow Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) mentioned some doubtful cases, one or two of which would cause some anxiety in the North. As I understand it, a crofter is still fully covered under the Act of 1886 as a statutory tenant in perpetuity and can bequeath and can also assign to people other than members of his own family if he wishes to do so. I should like to know whether he is affected at all by the provisions of this Bill in respect of his rights under the 1886 Act. It appears that all the purposes of this Bill are fairly covered under the 1886 Act so far as the crofters' land and rights are concerned. I believe the crofter under the 1886 Act retains all his rights and tenure security as a tenant if he cultivates the land and shows reasonably good husbandry. The tenancy of the land, of course, in that case would still be able to pass in perpetuity, according to his free wish and subject to existing and well known limitations.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: In order to remain a landholder one has to reside within two miles of the holding and a case will, therefore, arise where someone goes more than two miles away and claims to be an ordinary tenant. That is another problem.

Mr. MacMillan: There is a certain laxity in the application of the law, and I know of crofters and people who are statutory tenants by law who write to me from as far away as New Zealand and Kentucky, but who are the sons in the family to whom the land falls when the father or mother or the tenant next-of-kin or previous in succession dies. Some may have lived in Australia and New Zealand all their days. Somebody may be a sub-tenant, cultivating the land to satisfy the conditions of the Act of 1886, but the legal tenant in these cases is thousands of miles way and certainly not within the two miles.
Owing to the laxity of the application of the 1886 Act protection is perhaps even too generous in cases to the tenant, because in such cases he is doing nothing whatever to cultivate the land. He lays claim to it and the person who is cultivating the land in his absence—it may be a member of his own family, a brother or a sister—has no statutory claim to the land, although he is doing all the work in developing it. It is quite common, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, under the 1886 Act, for a crofter to sign away the tenancy to a person right outside his own family. He has that freedom. In many cases it is desirable to do so rather than to treat as necessarily the most desirable person to be next in succession somebody closely related, but living in New Zealand or Kentucky who has no intention of residing within two miles of the land or of engaging in agriculture.
But we must consider here what we are being asked to approve finally in the Bill. On my layman's reading, I do not think the crofters are disturbed in any of their rights or obligations under the 1886 Act by reason of this Bill, but are we to rely on the omission of any specific reference to their exclusion as being confirmation of the crofters' position under the 1886 Act? Are we to rely on the omission of any specific mention from the Provisions under Part I of the Act as a guarantee that he will not be disturbed in any of his existing rights?
I should like to be much clearer on the point than I am at the moment. There may be a danger of a little too much prejudice because of the origin of this particular Amendment. Let us guard against that for the purposes of this particular discussion. We might unwittingly be doing an injustice—not a conscious injustice by the Lord Advocate or those handling the technicalities of the Bill—and lending ourselves to an injustice which might in administration subsequently arise. It would I know be quite unwittingly; I am not suggesting for one moment it would be contemplated or deliberate, but it could possibly arise. I do not like to feel that we are relying on the omission of a specific reference to the exclusion of the crofters as a guarantee that we are not depriving them of any of their rights under the 1886 Act. I should like clarification on that point.

Major McCallum: I rise to put a point very briefly about the position under Part I of this Bill, of the crofter and the statutory smallholder. I share a certain anxiety which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) brought out very clearly, I think. In his interjection early in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), the Lord Advocate said it would be undesirable to insert this Amendment into the Bill. I wonder if he can make it quite clear—and I am talking more about the crofter than the statutory smallholder—why it should be undesirable to put it down in black and white that this provision does not apply to them. During the earlier passage of this Bill through this House, and during discussions with farming organisations, I always understood that it would not apply to them, but I feel it would clarify the position to put it down in the Bill. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if he can give that explanation.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when explaining the reason for our opposition to this Amendment, explained that the Amendment was in his opinion unnecessary and undesirable. Perhaps I may first deal with the question of undesirability. I should point out that for a number of years there has existed side by side in Scotland two separate codes—the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act code and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts code. No confusion has ever arisen in the minds of any of the persons dealing with either of those codes as to the dividing line between one and the other. There has been no confusion either for the landholder himself or the lawyer who had to deal with it or even for the Land Court. The distinctions between these two codes are quite clearly marked and defined. Matters such as security of tenure, the method of fixing rents, requirements as to residence, cultivation of holdings, rights of succession, rights of compensation and improvements, are all matters quite clearly defined as between the different types of holding.
May I remind hon. Members and particularly, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C.

Reid) that in the Small Landholders Acts there have been incorporated from time to time provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, so that these provisions are incorporated into the other code out of the Agricultural Holdings Act code. From the point of view of its being undesirable I would first stress the point that if this Amendment were accepted it would throw great legal doubt on the question whether it did not also repeal those provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which have been incorporated in the Small Landholders Acts.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If all we say is that this part of this Act shall not apply, that does not prevent the remaining parts of the other Acts from applying, surely?

The Lord Advocate: This part of the Bill has to be read as one with all the other Agricultural Holdings Acts to which reference is made in Clause 25. The incorporation into the other code of various provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts means, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, that, under the Interpretation Act, they must be read in future as embracing all the Agricultural Holdings Acts in existence. That being so confusion would certainly be created if this Amendment were accepted, and doubt would also arise as to whether or not this inevitably meant that, in so far as the provisions of this part of the Bill have now to be read as part of the agricultural holdings code, those parts of the agricultural holdings code which have been already incorporated into the other code, were automatically repealed. For that reason, and that reason alone, it would be very undesirable to accept this Amendment.
But, of course, there are other reasons. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of "holding" as it now exists by virtue of this Bill. The expression "holding" now is defined as "agricultural land held in aggregate comprised in a lease." Therefore, the whole basis of the applicability of this Bill is, that it applies to land comprised in a lease; the justification for applying the Bill is that the land is held by the tenant by virtue of a lease. The fundamental distinction between land to which this Bill applies and land to which the Small Landholders


Acts apply is, that the basic qualification under the Small Landholders Acts is not the lease at all, but the statutory form of tenure which is authorised by those Acts.
I should like to develop that, because since the qualification under this Bill is land comprised in a lease, and lease is defined under the 1923 Act as a "letting of or agreement for letting land for a term of years or for lives or for lives and years or from year to year," that is the criterion as to whether or not a particular holding falls within these Acts or not. But when we come to the Small Landholders Acts we find that what gives the effect of these Acts is not the holding under a lease but the fact that a person is registered in respect of that holding, and that it so becomes a registered holding; and the benefits of the Acts are attracted to that holding by virtue of that registration. Accordingly, it is from the registration under the Small Landholders Acts that the rights flow so far as those particular holdings are concerned; whereas it is by virtue of the lease the rights flow so far as the Agricultural Holdings Acts are concerned. There we have the funamental distinction.
We find that under Section 2 (2) of the 1911 Act the qualified class of lease holders become landholders within the meaning of that Act. Accordingly, they hold and benefit not by virtue of their lease but by the statutory terms of the Act, and that applies, not only to leaseholders existing as at 1911, but to all other landholders who wanted to come within the Act and for whom provision is made in registration. It is that fundamental distinction which entitles us to say that landholders under the Small Landholders Acts are not people to whom the Agricultural Holdings Acts apply directly. The Agricultural Holdings Acts apply only to the small landholders by virtue of the indirect incorporation of parts of the Agricultural Holdings Acts into the Small Landholders Acts, and when a person has been registered as a small landholder—or, rather, the holding has been registered as a small landholding—under the Acts, it is the provisions of those Acts which govern the treatment of that particular holding.
In these circumstances it seems to me, perhaps, too clear—because if anything seems too clear one begins to wonder if one has hold of the right end of the stick

or not—that that is the justification for the long-time recognition of the distinction between the two codes: that one is based on leases, and the other is based on registration; and a holding which gets the benefit of the Small Landholders Acts by virtue of being registered is divorced, to that extent, from the Agricultural Holdings Acts. It does, however, enjoy some of the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings Acts because by various Statutes certain of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts have been incorporated into the Small Landholders Acts. If the holding is registered under the Small Landholders Acts the small landholder is bound by the provisions of those Acts. He cannot say, "I want to make the best of both worlds." I think that, to a certain extent, answers one of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
As to the question, "Are there still statutory small tenants in existence?" I say that the answer is, "Yes." Since, however, the number cannot be increased it will be appreciated that they are a diminishing number. I revert to the point that if a person has become a statutory landholder, then his lease has been converted into a statutory qualification; and it is the statutory qualification which is the basis of his right to the protection of the Small Landholders Acts.
I was asked about the position of the small landholder who leaves his holding and goes out with the two mile limit. He may go three miles, and become a bona fide traveller on a Sunday. He may go to New Zealand, Australia, or some other parts of the world mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) as the places in which his friends land. What is the position of such a one? It is this. It is the holding which still remains a smallholding under the Acts. If it becomes vacant it cannot be let otherwise than by consent of the Department of Agriculture or, failing that, the Land Court. Accordingly, we cannot cease to qualify a particular holding as a landholding merely because the occupant of that holding goes outwith the two miles' limit. Therefore, I do not think that the particular difficulty adumbrated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman applies in this particular case.

Mr. Charles Williams: Supposing the occupier of one of these


holdings goes to New Zealand and dies there. Can he leave that holding to someone, else? Supposing it is taken over by the Land Board in the meanwhile or that they have reached a decision on this matter, as the Lord Advocate has just said, and they give that decision without the person to whom it is left knowing that? Supposing it gets let to someone else, and he comes back to this country. What is the position? Is he entitled to the occupation of the holding, and how does he proceed if he is entitled to that occupation to get the possible present sitting tenant out?

The Lord Advocate: It sounds like a guid ganging plea.

Mr. Williams: What is that?

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interfere in Scottish affairs, he ought to learn the Scottish dictionary. The position is that his holding remains a statutory holding under the Small Landholders Acts until such time, either by the operation of law or otherwise through the consent of the Department of Agriculture, it is transferred to another person, who will be registered again as the landholder in respect of that holding; but if the landholder left and went elsewhere, the question as to whether or not he had lost his right to that holding would be a matter of determination eventually by the Land Court. If they decided that he had lost his rights, and the rights went elsewhere, and he tried to bequeath the land and rights which the law said no longer existed, I do not think that any real difficulty would arise. In those circumstances, I think that many of the points posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead disappear.
If we look at this from the point of view that under the small landholders code there are certain provisions made regarding the disposal of the land, the right of bequeathing it and various other things, attach to that holding so long as it remains a smallholding within the Small Landholders Acts. If the holding does not fall within that category but would satisfy the definition of agricultural land under this Bill or the existing Acts, then the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts would be attracted to that holding.
To sum up, I would submit to the House that in the first place by virtue of the

different definitions, and by virtue of the different manner under which the holdings attract the attention of the respective codes, it would be unnecessary for us to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill, particularly if I may make reference to one typical example. Under Section 32 (5) of the 1911 Small Landholders (Scotland) Act it is provided that—
Except so far as varied by this Section, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, shall apply in the case of the tenancy of a statutory small tenant in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease.
That conclusively indicates the recognition by statute of the different basis of the two holdings. But the 1908 and 1910 Acts have been caught up by the 1923 Act and now form part of a uniform code which we read together when construing those Acts.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is the Lord Advocate prepared to admit that Part I of this Bil will necessarily apply to all statutory small tenants, contrary to the intentions of the Government?

6.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I am saying that in so far as the existing law for statutory smalholdings has incorporated as part of their code the Agricultural Holdings Acts we intend to leave that untouched, and if we accepted the Amendment which was passed in another place it would undoubtedly lead at least to confusion as to whether that did not automatically repeal the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which by statute had been incorporated into the other Code. That is a possibility which we do not wish to arise, and we feel that by leaving out this Amendment we leave the law not in any doubt but in a much clearer position than it would have been in, even if the Amendment had been accepted, and in exactly the same position with regard to smallholdings as it was in the past. In those circumstances, I urge the House most respectfully to disagree with the Amendment that has been passed in another place.

Mr. Williams: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the hon. Gentleman has already spoken once.

Mr. Williams: I only asked a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member asked what seemed to be a very long question.

Mr. Williams: I only asked a question, and I have not spoken on this Amendment at all. I am in considerable difficulty about this Amendment to know precisely what I am to do. Only the other day, I was reprimanded by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for not knowing all about this Bill, and now the Lord Advocate seemed to resent my asking him a question while he was speaking, although he very courteously gave way.

The Lord Advocate: I did not in any way resent the hon. Gentleman asking a question. I merely suggested that it was unfortunate that he did not understand the Scottish lexicon.

Mr. Williams: That is why I hoped that he would explain it, and why I was disappointed that his explanation did not seem to mean very much. Perhaps I may remind him, if he knows all about Scottish law, that I have been able to amend Scottish law in the Scottish Committee long before he was in the House. If he wants to know more about that, I will give him a little knowledge of Scottish law afterwards, although my knowledge is not very deep. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting there. He is clear and he could quite easily, as we know from experience, get up and enable us ordinary laymen sitting in different parts of the House to understand the answers to two or three simple questions about this Amendment. I am afraid that we no longer have the pleasure or possibility for the moment, of having any help from the previous Secretary of State for Scotland.
The first point I want to know about this Amendment concerns the assurance by the Lord Advocate that it is not necessary. He seemed to me to give quite a number of reasons why it was not necessary, and also rather contradictory

reasons. Cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland tell me quite clearly and precisely why this Amendment is not necessary, and can he also tell me precisely who would be injured by the Amendment and how it is going to injure them. I cannot for the life of me see how simple words such as are in this Amendment, which would seem to me to be making quite certain that something is not done to the small landholders which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) explained with great clarity, will make their position less certain.

From the opening remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary today, it rather appeared that he had not at the back of his mind those fighting resources which would have enabled him really to believe in his opposition to this Amendment. For that reason, I wonder whether I could have an answer to those two or three questions? If so, I am sure it would be very welcome, not only to hon. Members on this side of the House but to hon. Members opposite, because there was in the mind of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) some doubt as to the exact position.

Mr. M. MacMillan: I think that is quite clear now.

Mr. Williams: There was some doubt?

Mr. MacMillan: Yes, but it is clear now.

Mr. Williams: He had some doubt, and I am sure he was not reassured in his mind by the Law Officer. We want not only legal arguments, but to know exactly how it will work out in practice. That is why I want a practical reply from the clear-headed Secretary of State for Scotland.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 121.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[6.23 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Ayles, W. H.
Berry, H.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Beswick, F.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bacon, Miss A.
Binns, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Blackburn, A. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barton, C.
Boardman, H.


Alpass, J. H.
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Attewell, H. C.
Belcher, J. W.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Benson, G.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)




Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Rhodes, H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Johnston, Douglas
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cluse, W. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, C.


Cobb, F. A.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Sharp, Granville


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cook, T. F.
Leonard, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Crawley, A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Longden, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Donovan, T.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edelman M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A. S.
Symonds, A. L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fairhurst, F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Foot, M. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Titterington, M. F.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Viant, S. P.


Gilzean, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Guy, W. H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wigg, George


Haworth, J.
Paget, R. T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pearson, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Peart, T. F.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perrins, W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Proctor, W. T.



Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Janner, B.
Ranger, J.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, D. R.





NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Eccles, D. M.
Keeling, E. H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
Erroll, F. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bossom, A. C.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Linstead, H. N.


Bower, N.
Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Low, A. R. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gammans, L. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Challen, C.
Glyn, Sir R.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Haughton, S. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Digby, S. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Donner, P. W.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Dunean, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Jennings, R.
Mellor, Sir J.







Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Robinson, Roland
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Nutting, Anthony
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pickthorn, K.
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.



Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prescott, Stanley
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Commander Agnew and


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Studholme, H. G.
Major Ramsay.


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Teeling, William



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, after "equipment," insert:
on a holding (as defined in the Act of 1923).

6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment requires to be taken together with the next Amendment in line 38. We have not yet got away from the small landholder's tenure. In the case of a landholding tenure it would be inappropriate to issue directions to an owner in respect of fixed equipment, since in most cases the responsibility for the provisions on upkeep of the equipment rests on the holder. The Amendment meets the point by restricting the operation of Subsection (4) to holdings to which the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act apply.

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 48, after "with," insert:
and the Secretary of State is satisfied that an adequate opportunity has been afforded to the person to whom the direction has been given to carry out the direction.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The insertion of these words makes it clear beyond doubt that action under the Subsection will not be taken by the Secretary of State unless he is satisfied that adequate opportunity for compliance has been afforded to the person to whom a direction to carry out the work has been given. The Amendment merely defines in the Bill something to which effect would otherwise have been given by administration.

Mr. McKie: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for asking the House to agree to this Amendment. He will be aware that Members on this side pressed on many occasions during the Committee stage that action contemplated under this Clause should be taken only after the Secretary of State and those associated with him were absolutely satisfied that the fullest opportunity had been given to the person upon whom a direction notice was served to carry out the requirements. I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on having the temerity to persuade his own party to agree to this Amendment. I feel sure that his ready acquiescence will not be shared by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I assure the Joint Under-Secretary that no matter what may be said by any of his hon. Friends on this point he is certainly on firm ground.
I say so, because this Clause will certainly have far-reaching effects. There can be no dubiety about that. The whole Bill will have very far-reaching effects, but this Clause is bound to have a far-reaching effect on the land system in Scotland as we have known it in the past. No doubt that will be a matter of extreme jubilation on the part of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), but many of us who take a more balanced and commonsense view of this subject do not share that jubilation. That is why we are delighted that the joint Under-Secretary has agreed to what I might describe as the breathing space, which the noble Lords, in their great wisdom, have seen fit to propose in this Amendment.
I have mentioned the far-reaching effects of this Clause, and I would make so bold as to say that in a very few years we shall see an ever-increasing quantity of land being offered on the market as a


result, even if the Joint Under-Secretary does agree to the incorporation of this Amendment. I am sorry to see the Lord Advocate looking so pleased, but he knows that what I am saying is absolutely true, and that a very great burden will be laid by this Clause upon the unfortunate owners of land. Many of these people have been unable in the past to meet all the requirements laid upon them, but now their difficulties will be almost insurmountable. This Amendment will give a breathing space and an opportunity for these matters to be carefully investigated.

CLAUSE 50.—(Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 15, leave out "of a spring trap."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the following two Amendments in lines 16 and 20 bring us back to the question of the employment of spring traps for killing rabbits. We discussed this matter at some length during the Committee stage, and it was also discussed very fully in another place. When the Bill was introduced, we proposed that the status quo in regard to the employment of spring traps should be maintained. During the Report stage we provided for the complete prohibition of spring traps, and the Amendment which I am now asking the House to accept provides that spring traps shall be permitted only if they are of a type approved by the Secretary of State, except that the Secretary of State may by order authorise the use of other traps. What we have in mind is the ordinary gin trap, which is being used at the present time, and it will be used only by the authority of the Secretary of State.
One of the Amendments provides that the Secretary of State may by order restrict the nature of the land on which he will grant authority to use a trap of a non-approved type. At the end of the day, when he is satisfied that there are sufficient supplies of traps of an approved type to satisfy the needs of those whose business it is to destroy these destructive

animals, he may by regulation withdraw all authorisations given. My right hon. Friend has given a lot of thought to this matter. He was appreciative of the desirability of limiting to the utmost the employment of instruments which are cruel in their use. It was for that reason, and in response to the views expressed on Committee stage, that he moved the Amendment during the Report stage prohibiting the use of steel traps. It was evident then that the Government were not wholly satisfied that the rabbit menace would not increase as a result of the complete prohibition of the spring trap.
The matter was discussed at great length in another place, but since then we have had the strongest representations from agricultural interests in Scotland. I myself, during an extensive tour of agricultural areas in Scotland, spoke to many farmers, and others whose interest it is to protect crops, and nowhere did I find anyone who believed that we could keep the rabbit population within reasonable limits at present if the gin trap was prohibited. These Amendments seem to be the right kind of compromise, having regard to the humanitarian considerations which have been advanced from time to time.
If they are accepted, the Clause will provide for the Secretary of State by administrative action, to limit the employment of the gin trap. When the regulation is made—and when that will be I do not know—providing for the complete prohibition of the gin trap, or any other trap which is not approved by my right hon. Friend, the House will have an opportunity of considering the matter. There is no doubt that if the gin trap were prohibited now the rabbit menace would increase, and there would be a considerable loss of valuable food in Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope there will be a little further elucidation of this Amendment, because although legal brains have been at work trying to interpret the expressions of opinion in Standing Committee, and in another place, I believe it leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of clarity. I represent an agricultural constituency, but there is also a section of the population in Scotland which will look upon this Amendment as an attempt


to interfere with private enterprise. I refer to miners, who are also interested in rabbits. The penalties which can be inflicted upon poachers can be regarded as being rather harsh; £20 for the first offence and £50 for the second offence will alarm those who engage in this kind of enterprise. I think the national union of rabbits has every reason to compliment itself upon its great victory in this Bill, and upon the humanitarian views which have been expressed in relation to the war on rabbits. I only wish that the same humanitarian feelings had been expressed about war against human beings.
In Committee, we spent the better part of two hours, and in another place they had a very long Debate, talking about the humane way of exterminating rabbits. By this Amendment the instruments which are to be used, the new kinds of traps, have to be approved by the Secretary of State. By considering it a great crime to shoot a rabbit during the first hour after sunset, we have set our way towards humanitarian considerations in the extermination of these animals. I only hope that the House, which has spent so much time in considering the humanitarian aspect of killing rabbits, will apply the same point of view when it comes to discuss the slaughter of human beings.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Stubbs: I want to join with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his criticism of this Amendment. The Bill prohibits the use of steel traps in a hole and the English Act prohibits the use of them on the ground. In Committee, we were nearly unanimous about the use of these new traps, and I am astonished at this Amendment, because it was made clear then that it was cruel and inhuman to use these steel traps. The traps must be approved by the Secretary of State. What is the trap, and how will it be used? I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend has seen a trap that is supposed not to be cruel. In my opinion, all steel traps are cruel. I should have thought that he would have brought a trap here, and showed us how it works. Suppose a rabbit catches one of its paws in a trap, and has to stay in it all night. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would not say

that that was not cruel. Why leave this matter to the Secretary of State? Why should not the law decide to prohibit this cruel instrument of torture to rabbits? According to the regulations made during the war, and still in force, rabbits are vermin, and must be destroyed. Why not use humane means of destroying them? Why use a cruel instrument to destroy them? Why not poison them? Rabbits destroy far more food than they themselves provide, and we must take care that they do not destroy crops.
I come from a purely agricultural constituency. Only last week I was on a farm where rabbits had destroyed a ten-acre field of Brussels sprouts. The field belonged to a landlord, but the tenants had to go to the expense of wiring the field to keep the rabbits off. If in the interest of food production we have to get rid of rabbits, let us do it in a humane and not a cruel way. It is not English, nor is it Scottish, to use an inhuman instrument such as it is proposed to sanction here. We have had no description whatever, of this trap, but to my mind steel traps, no matter what the construction, are cruel and inhuman. I will not vote for this Amendment, and the fact that we convinced ourselves in Committee that these horrible things should go makes me oppose this Amendment still further. I say that in these enlightened days it is not necessary to use these cruel instruments to get rid of rabbits. The only proper and humane thing to do is to abolish the use of steel traps once and for all.

Sir William Darling: I support the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs). I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) miss the opportunity to quote from a poem by Robert Burns on the wounded hare, which tells of the agonies which these poor creatures suffer when in traps

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) misunderstood what I was saying. I was not advocating inhumanity to hares or rabbits; I was claiming that the same consideration should be given to human beings as is given to hares and rabbits.

Sir W. Darling: I observed that, and the irrelevancy was also apparent to


other hon. Members. Instead of human beings, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire could have discussed the poem on a wounded hare which was written with such force and vigour by Burns when he was a resident of the hon. Member's constituency. This is an unsatisfactory Amendment. We hear today a great deal about scientific research. It is now within the compass of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if rabbits are vermin and have to be destroyed, to approve this cruel means of destruction. I think it is a little foolish that the use of these traps can only be permitted under the special permission of the Secretary of State. Surely this was an opportunity for him to ask that within the next 12 months he should receive designs and patterns for the painless extermination of rabbits, if they are vermin. Not only would that be an opportunity of stirring up the Scottish inventive genius, but it would be an opportunity of setting up a new Scottish industry.
Instead of that, the Secretary of State has accepted this Amendment from the Lords as a compromise, and the use of these traps can be continued under his special licence. That is a very inadequate way of approaching the problem. If this is an evil, it is a cruel way to stamp it out, and I am sure there is a more forthright way of carrying it out than is proposed in the Amendment. The farming industry should be allowed to use its own resources. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire indicated that in his constituency there were a large number of voters—and I take it they were his supporters, too—who used another method of exterminating rabbits. I personally would rather see an irregular approach to the extermination of rabbits persisted in, instead of the use of steel traps.
Nothing has been said about the value of the rabbit for food. I am informed that the ordinary rabbit contains more protein than a chicken, and far from discouraging rabbits, the Secretary of State might well encourage them for food, because food is a very important matter at the present time. Instead of that, the Secretary of State says of this great and previous evil, "I will perpetuate it, though I will no longer perpetuate it generally, but under special licence given under my own hand." I think that is unworthy of him.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I should be very sorry if the unusual and entertaining combination between Cambridgeshire, South Ayrshire and South Edinburgh were to weaken in any way the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment. I never could understand why on the Report stage the Government inserted an Amendment in the Bill that the use of spring traps should be prohibited for killing hares and rabbits, nor could I understand at whose instigation that Amendment was inserted. It was not at the instigation or request of any agricultural body in Scotland, because, as the Joint Under-Secretary has told us, he has ascertained that informed, experienced agricultural opinion in Scotland views with the greatest alarm the spread of the rabbit menace and feels that it would be quite impossible to keep that menace within reasonable bounds unless it can continue to have the use of traps.
Much as I agree in my heart that the use of steel traps is undesirable, I feel that the way in which this Amendment has been worded is the right way. The Secretary of State is allowed by regulation to continue the use of spring traps until such time as a proper trap can be produced in sufficient numbers to keep the rabbit population down. As I say, I hope the Secretary of State will not weaken in his support of the whole of agricultural opinion in Scotland, that it is the right thing that this Amendment which the Lords have inserted should be supported by this House.

CLAUSE 68.—(Establishment and functions of Agricultural Executive Committees.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 24, leave out "by the Secretary of State or," and insert: "whether on the requirement of the Secretary of State or not."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Previously there had been some doubt about whether the sub-committees of the committees which are to be set up under the Clause would be expected to carry out the directions given to them directly by the Secretary of State, and the purpose


of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the sub-committees in each case receive directions from the main committees.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Applications for certificates of bad husbandry.)

Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 16, leave out from beginning to "deemed" and insert: "Within one month of notice of a proposal being given or being."

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill provides that the landlord or the tenant may require that any proposal by the Secretary of State to refuse or to grant a certificate of bad husbandry shall be referred to the Land Court. It was suggested earlier in our discussions in this place and certainly in the discussions in another place that a time limit ought to be fixed. The Amendment fixes a time limit of one month within which such a requirement must be met.

Amendment agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Agricultural Executive Committees and Sub-Committees.)

Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 35, at end, insert:
3. It in relation to any appointment of a nominated member it appears to the Secretary of State that the college, council or organisation concerned have failed, within a reasonable time after he has called upon them by notice in writing so to do, to nominate a person for the appointment, the Secretary of State may, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule, appoint as the nominated member in question such person as he thinks fit.
4. A Committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted and shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment speaks for itself. It permits greater flexibility in the setting up of agricultural advisory committees.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill. The Lord Advocate, Mr. McKinlay, Mr. J. S. C. Reid, Mr. W. Ross and Mr. Snadden. Three to be the quorum.—[The Lord Advocate.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX ARREARS (EX-SERVICE MEN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

7.1 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: On, 8th June, 1948, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
The number of claims made and outstanding for under-payment of Income Tax by the Inland Revenue Department against ex-Service men in respect of their wives' earnings in industry during the war, and the total amount of taxation arrears involved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
I regret that this information is not available. I should, however, say that in such cases the Inland Revenue do not ask for immediate payment of the arrear. They arrange as a rule for its collection by increased P.A.Y.E. deductions spread over a later year or years.
I asked the Chancellor if the information would be available if I put down a Question the following week. The Chancellor replied:
No, Sir. It would be much too expensive to collect all this information, and it would disrupt the very important and useful work now being done in the collection of taxes 
I asked a second supplementary question:
Are not these claims entirely due to the negligence of Service Departments and of the Inland Revenue, and is it not most unfair to burden these men who have difficulty in meeting their current liabilities?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
No, Sir, it is certainly not due to negligence either by the Inland Revenue or the Service Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1948; Vol. 451, C. 1875–6.]
The Chancellor's replies revealed three matters of considerable importance. The first is that information which is rightly the due of this House is refused to it.


The second is that P.A.Y.E. is being used to compel employers to deduct tax on war Service earnings from current civilian earnings. The third is his denial of negligence by the Service Departments and the Inland Revenue Department.
On Monday I wrote to the Chancellor informing him that I intended to ask the following questions tonight, because I am anxious to give him another chance to deal with this very important matter. The first question is: The total number of claims for arrears of Income Tax on joint incomes made against ex-Service men? The second question is: The estimated number of similar claims which remain to be made? I have deliberately omitted asking in these two questions for the amount of money involved, so that it will make it easier for the Claims Department to give an answer. The third question is: Are these claims made against ex-Service men irrespective of the rank they held? I expect answers to those questions from the Financial Secretary tonight. They are important, and they affect all hon. Members. They affect every constituency in Great Britain, because there must be very many men and women who are affected by this pursuit of them for ancient arrears.
The case which prompted my Question is that of a constituent of mine who was mobilised as a private soldier in the Territorial Army on the outbreak of war in 1939 and went through the various stages—corporal, sergeant, officer cadet, second lieutenant, and so on—and served at home at various stations and overseas for the invasion of Normandy, right through to the Rhine and Berlin, and was released in May, 1946. In 1942 he married—I imagine when he became commissioned—and in every year of his commissioned service he filled in the appropriate form showing his income and recording the fact that he was married and giving the name of his wife's employer. She was employed by the Ministry of War Transport, and she continued in that employment.
Every year the tax assessor at the War Office, who, I presume, is a representative of the Inland Revenue Department, deducted, or instructed the Army agents to deduct, from the soldier's pay the proper amount of tax which he was due to pay. In the form which the soldier filled in

there was a reference to the amount of his wife's earnings. Of course, the soldier was not able to say what these were. His wife had a basic salary which was subject to increase and also subject to war bonuses and to overtime, and he honestly stated that he did not know what it was. He gave the name and address of his wife's employers—the Ministry of War Transport, Berkeley Square The wife paid her Income Tax. The tax assessor in that Department, who, I presume, was a representative of the Inland Revenue Department, fixed the amount of tax to be deducted from her pay. These were two citizens rendering the highest service in their power to the State, and they paid the amount of tax which they believed to be their due each year as it became due, and both of them were under the control of the Government.
When the husband was released in May, 1946, his wife immediately left the service of the Ministry of Transport. They set up home in my constituency where they had lived before war broke out, and, like good citizens, they are raising a family. Already they have one child, and I hope they will have many more. In March of this year my constituent received a demand for £88, being arrears of tax from the year 1943 in respect of their joint income as husband and wife, which for the first time was being amalgamated. To a little man of modest means—an income of probably £300 or £400 a year; I do not exactly know how much—£88 is a burden which must be intolerable in these days. All of us find it difficult enough to meet the savage taxation we have to pay and the high cost of living. I well recollect that at the end of the 1914–18 war I was in a very similar situation to this. I was a young soldier and I had two children and I had to come back and start life afresh. It was not easy.
The second case which has come to my notice is again of a fellow who went through the ranks and rose to commissioned rank. He is a single man. One day his employers came to him, over two years after he had been demobilised—he was also a 1939 soldier who went through to the end—and they told him they had received a communication from the Inland Revenue Department to code him at the lowest P.A.Y.E. code, which meant that he had to pay the highest rate of tax at 9s. in the £ and had no allowances at


all. That was the first intimation this man had.
P.A.Y.E. was brought in to avoid the burden of only one year's arrears on the people of this country—not five years or seven years as in the case of these soldiers—and to ensure that the Revenue did not suffer loss, but it is now being used as a debt collecting instrument to hound and harass these ex-Service men and their wives in this fashion. I say that that is quite illegal, and, if necessary, I shall do all I can to have this tested in the courts unless the Government take the action which I believe they will take as a result of this Debate.
What are the actual facts so far as the Inland Revenue is concerned? I have a great regard for that Department of State, as I am sure we all have. I am the son of a civil servant, and in no circumstances would I throw stones at civil servants, because we all owe them a tremendous amount. They are hard-working men of character who, in the old days, did not get very much pay, and they are magnificent citizens, but they were burdened with an impossible job in attempting to assess the incomes of men and women in the Services on top of all their other burdens. With men situated all over the world, in the Eighth Army, Burma, in the Normandy invasion, it must have been extremely difficult for accurate returns to be made. But to come along now, two or three years after the end of the war, as is happening, and to raise claims going back five years, and to use P.A.Y.E. as an instrument of collection, savours of the worst that a usurer could do, and much worse than the law permits a usurer to do.
There is another important aspect which I must not omit from my brief remarks. I estimate that there were not fewer than 1,500,000 wives of ex-Service men in employment during the war. I have every reason to believe that that figure is accurate. The combined earnings of husband and wife would bring the majority of the men, irrespective of rank, within the clutches of the Claims Department. The disparity that used to exist between the income of the officer and of the other ranks is not nearly so much as it was. I anticipate that other ranks are being completely ignored in creating these claims for five, six, and seven years' arrears against the contributions. I hope they have been

ignored. I have not the slightest objection to their being forgotten provided exactly the same policy is being followed for all ranks. In view of the small disparity in pay, and in view of the fact that an overwhelming proportion of the officers in the recent war were men who came up from the ranks, surely it would be wrong if the Government were simply putting a fence round a majority of the men and saying that these officers, these ex-corporals and ex-privates, and their working wives have to be subjected to this infernal persecution—because that is what it amounts to, to come along five, six and seven years after the tax should have been assessed and paid.
The fact that the wife I referred to was a Government servant does not make this case any better than the majority, because all the working wives were subject to P.A.Y.E. from some date onwards, also the husband—the soldier, sailor or airman—was under the control of the Government and was paid by the Government. The wife's income, whatever she did, was subject to control by the Government, and when the Chancellor said in reply to me that there was no negligence on the part of the Service Departments or of the Inland Revenue, and I am able to give the House an example which I am certain is one of thousands, it is ludicrous to say that there was no negligence. There was a complete breakdown, and I say that these claims should be written off as a war loss, because that is what they are. If the other ranks are not being taxed, then the ignoring of them is treating them as equivalent to a war debt. I say to the Government, let them rise to this. If they hesitate because some of the victims have paid, and I know they have, the difficulty can be overcome by repaying them.
The Government have a chance to act generously towards the men and women who deserve the best treatment we can give them. If they do so, the Government will be applauded not only by all hon. Members in this House but by all the people outside this House who, I am perfectly certain, are heartily behind the appeal I am making now, and which I know other hon. Members support. If, however, the Government fail to do that, they will be condemned by all decent citizens.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Granville Sharp: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) for raising this matter tonight, because I am sure that most Members of Parliament have had complaints from their constituents of the way in which they have been treated in this matter. I will only mention one case.
A young man was demobilised from the R.A.F. in June, 1946, after five years' service. At that time he was a single man. So far as he knew—and he had taken steps to ascertain that this was done—Income Tax deductions had been made from his pay while he was in the R.A.F. He was demobilised. He had been a warrant officer and had been able to save a little money. He decided to get married. He set up house and, in due course, got employment, but at a lower wage than the pay which he had been getting in the R.A.F. At present he earns about £6 a week and he thought everything was cleared until December, 1947, when he got a statement from the Departmental Claims Branch, Liverpool, telling him that he had underpaid Income Tax whilst in the R.A.F. to the extent of £88, and that it was proposed to deduct this amount in the usual way through P.A.Y.E.
In view of the fact that, with other deductions, including Income Tax deductions, he was even then only normally getting about £5 10s. a week, that did not make his future prospects look very bright. It certainly did not enable him to think that he could keep up a decent standard of living, not only for himself but also for his wife and, possibly, enable him, later on, to rear a family. He wrote to the R.A.F. and asked why it was that these deductions had not been made in the proper way, and on 3rd April, 1948, he received a reply from the Air Ministry which included the following paragraph:
As firm liabilities were not reported by the Chief Inspector of Taxes, Departmental Claims Branch, Liverpool, for the years 1944–47, your respective accountant officers deducted tax based on provisional liabilities only.
It appeared that during the year 1944–45, whereas he should have had tax deducted to the extent of £37, only £17 was deducted, and whilst, during 1945–46 he should have paid £110, only £43 was deducted, and there was also a slight underpayment made during 1946–47.

Who was to blame? The Air Ministry say it was the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. It may be; I do not know. He may say it was the fault of the Air Ministry, but they have it between them and they should decide it between them. The Service man himself was not to blame.
Of course, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Streatham that it is illegal to come on such Service men for such tax liabilities. I think it would be correct to say that the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department would not be doing their job properly if they decided not to make such claims without some instructions from his Department. What I want him to do tonight is to say that he will issue instructions to all his officers, who have power to deal with such cases, telling them "Be generous in your treatment. Be willing to write them off. Never mind the effect on the Revenue because these men have served their country for a long number of years. We"—that is, the right hon. Gentleman's Department or those who were in charge before him—"have been at fault for not seeing to it that those demands were made at the proper time when the amount could have been paid." These amounts which are now being asked for from such ex-Service men cannot be paid without severe hardship. I ask my right hon. Friend to say tonight that he will consider very favourably the claims for these payments to be discharged.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I would like to appeal to my right hon. Friend, who is himself an ex-Service man, to consider what has been said tonight. If I might perhaps introduce a note of levity I would say that, in my view, with the sole exception of the Senior Counsel to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the greatest authority on the subject of Income Tax in this country is Mr. Nathaniel Gubbins. I believe there is more sense in what Mr. Nathaniel Gubbins writes on Sundays about Income Tax than in many learned tomes on the subject. However that may be in relation to the broad run of our Income Tax affairs, the case of the ex-Service man is entirely different.
There is a very strong—indeed, an overwhelming—case for the view that the rate of Income Tax today is far too high


in relation to the ordinary individual who is earning his living. But we are dealing with a different case, an even more overwhelming case, that of the ex-Service man, and, in particular, the ex-Service man whose income has been aggregated with that of his wife because she has responded to the appeals of the Government in time of war to be patriotic and to give her own effort to the community.
I want to go still further and to say that we are dealing with ex-Service men who, on the whole, would have been making more money in all probability if war had not occurred. I remember what was once said by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) What happened with him occurred in my case also. He, a solicitor, joined up when the war began and was paid, as I was paid, 3s. per week. That was what I received as a private soldier for the first four months of the war. The son of an hon. Gentleman opposite was with me at the time. I think he received a little more because he was not married. Before joining up we had been receiving a very substantial sum. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear with me in this argument, which I believe to be relevant. On the whole, those who joined up when war began suffered an enormous financial loss as a result of doing so. That financial loss was never recouped. I agree that at the end of the war Army pay was reasonably generous, having regard to all the allowances, but those people were never recouped for their original loss in joining up. That is a factor which my right hon. Friend, who himself suffered in the same way, ought to bear in mind in relation to this problem.
I want to turn now to a slightly different subject, which I know the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) has in mind. With deserters we have already indicated that if they come forward we are prepared to be generous to them. A large number of the Members of this House—over Zoo already—believe that all deserters ought now to be pardoned. Can it be seriously suggested that we ought not to be generous with Income Tax to those who consistently fought for us during the war while, on the other hand, we are going to be generous in relation to the penalty on those who forbore from fighting when they were members of the Armed Forces of the Crown?
I put to my right hon. Friend with great sincerity my opinion that the best thing he can do tonight is to say that he will reconsider this matter. I do not think any hon. Gentleman on either Front Bench is more sincerely regarded than he is and, if he says he will re-examine this matter, I am sure that his decision will carry great conviction. This is an overwhelming case. We are thinking here of men and women who are comparatively young. The hon. Member for Streatham raised the case of the man with, I think, one child—and we hope that he will have more. He must have if this country is to carry on. Surely we can be generous to somebody of that kind who has tried to give all for the benefit of the country. That is the characteristic of a great form of civilisation—that it is capable of being generous in emergency cases of this kind. I do not want to burden the House by any further observations except to say that on many occasions—and, I believe, on this one—magnanimity is the truest sign of genius. I hope that my right hon. Friend will show it tonight.

7.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I first of all answer the three questions put to me by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson)? I think they are much the same as the questions he put to my right hon. and learned Friend some days ago. I am afraid the answers must be the same as those then given by my right hon. and learned Friend. The information which the hon. Member seeks in answer to his first two questions is not available. It would be very difficult to obtain it. It would mean a long search in every tax office and, even then, we do not think we should be absolutely certain that we had arrived at the full and accurate figure. We keep no record of cases in which ex-Service men owe tax, whether or not it is attributable to the earnings of their wives from going out to work during the war.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not the claims department of the Inland Revenue at Llandudno the Department from which all these claims emanate?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No. We are rather used to thinking of Llandudno as the centre. That is because we happen to be


Members of Parliament and the Departmental Claims Branch has been functioning from there. It will, however, shortly be moved; part of it has already gone to Cardiff.
On the hon. Member's last question, whether these claims are made against ex-Service men irrespective of the rank they held, the answer is, "Yes, most certainly." The rank is immaterial. It is the liability of the ex-Service man, not his rank, which is taken into consideration. We have never assumed that, because a man is of a certain rank, we should take no notice of him, or that, because another man is perhaps of a higher rank, we should harry and harass him—which was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman.
The trouble really arises from the fact that Income Tax has to be based on total emoluments for the year and that, until the year is over, it is impossible to know the total of an individual's income and that of his wife. If it is below a certain level, a graduated rate of tax is charged upon it. Moreover, the allowances to which an individual will be entitled are often not known for certain until the end of the year—for example, the earned income allowance, within certain limits, is based on the total emoluments he receives. With a very large number of people, whose salaries or wages are fixed, it may be known, for example, that they will have no children during the year to complicate the calculation; but, apart from those cases, of which unfortunately there are few, it is impossible to say definitely and beyond any doubt until the year is up what the assessment of any individual will be.
That has been at the root of the trouble with which we are dealing. As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) said, a large number of men went into the Forces and suffered a grievous loss in income. Unfortunately we cannot take that into account when considering what should be done in cases of the type which have been put forward with such force and sympathy this evening. We have to use a different yardstick. We have to anchor ourselves first to the law and then temper the law with as much common sense and sympathy as is open to us. We must remember that it is not only ex-Service men, but everyone, who

is up against the simple fact that, when tax is being deducted, it is provisional until the year ends and an accurate assessment can be made. Only then can one see whether a person still owes a certain amount or whether, as sometimes happens, he or she has overpaid and a refund is due. We discussed this matter on the Finance Bill. In all cases where arrears are due to a person who has overpaid, they are paid; but the House recently agreed to a Clause in the Finance Bill under which an individual who has underpaid under P.A.Y.E.—which is a fairly accurate but not entirely accurate system of deduction—may be absolved from paying the small arrears due. In that sense we are doing what the hon. Member for Streatham wishes us to do. From information that comes to me, I am happy to think that the number of cases is not so great as he would have us believe.
In regard to Forces pay, the procedure followed was that the allowances which would be due jointly to a man and his wife were taken from the Service pay, that is they were set off against it. The great majority of married other ranks, apart from sergeants and warrant officers, found that there was no Income Tax due from them. But difficulties arose where the wife went to work. Sometimes it was very difficult to know within an appreciable time whether the wife had, or had not, gone to work. Of course, the husband knew, but the Inland Revenue and the Service Departments very often did not, and only later did the facts come to light. Then the Service Departments and the Inland Revenue Department realised that the wife had been to work and that the allowances which were being made and the tax which was being charged was not enough, and arrears piled up. That happened in a large number of cases.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many years afterwards was it discovered? What was the length of the time lag?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The period varied. The difficulty during the war was one which we have had in other directions. Thousands of men went into the Forces, some were single men who, during their career in the Forces, got married; others were already married and, when they joined up, the wife did not go to work, but did so later. There were all sorts of


permutations. The Services had to contend with all the changes and then the Inland Revenue Department had to catch up on all the changes. That happened not in one or two instances, but in thousands of cases. At that time, as now, the Inland Revenue Department was extremely under-staffed. Every change took time to reach the stage at which the man or his wife had the proper deductions made from pay. As a result, arrears were built up. I do not think anyone is to blame for it. It may be that, here and there, a mistake was made in a tax office and that something was allowed to go through which should not have gone through; then it had to be rectified. There is always the human factor and the chance of error. In the vast majority of cases, arrears are due to nothing more than the fact that there was a vast number of people to deal with, that changes were occurring continually and that, because of the shortage of staff, certain individuals got behind in payments. Inevitably there was delay
So far as I know, there are no cases where claims going back for seven years are now being made. As a matter of fact, under the law, unless there has been fraud—when one can pursue an individual in respect of something a long way back—I do not think a claim can be made for more than six years back. My information is that, in the majority of cases, the claims do not go back anything like so far as has been suggested.

Mr. Blackburn: I am speaking without reference to authority, but while I think it may be true that one cannot claim after six years has elapsed, I think that deductions can be made after six years have elapsed. It would be a very important statement if the Financial Secretary were to say tonight that there is no intention from now on of deducting under P.A.Y.E. for any Income Tax claim which arose six years after the time it should have been deducted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My information is that one cannot go back more than six years.

Mr. Blackburn: But one can deduct?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My information is that that includes deduction. It would be mere playing with words on my part to make a statement that we could not do

so and then to ride off knowing full well that we could deduct. When I used the phrase, I used it in the full sense, and it is my information that six years is the limit and that, for claims arising after that, one can neither deduct nor claim repayment of tax unless there has been fraud on the part of the individual concerned. Then, I believe, there is no time limit for the claims.
Part of the trouble has arisen owing to the introduction of P.A.Y.E., which did not apply to Service pay until 1947–48. If it had been introduced earlier, some of these difficulties would not have arisen. It was not applied to the Services during the war for obvious reasons, but it has now been applied. That being so, it is possible that some of these men who were grossly in arrears are finding, in the clearing up which is now going on, that they owe what to them are considerable sums. In the case which he brought to our notice, the hon. Member for Streatham said that the individual concerned owed £88. That is not my information. My information is that the amount owing is £54 but I will not quarrel with the hon. Member about the amount.

Sir D. Roberston: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figure I gave is correct, and that £88 is the sum claimed by the Inland Revenue for 1943 onwards. The Government have appropriated this man's post-war gratuity against the claim but the amount of the claim was the figure I gave. There were no inaccuracies in my speech.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course I accept what the hon. Member says, but I have here a note of the case. The Inland Revenue gave it to me on the assumption that the hon. Member would raise this case, as indeed he has done.

Sir D. Robertson: I sent the right hon. Gentleman the papers before I raised the question.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the figure I have here is £54. I think that what the hon. Member says is true, and that the Inland Revenue has taken over the postwar credit for 1945–46 which, as the House knows, they are doing in certain selected cases in order to help the individuals concerned. Whether they should do that or not is another matter upon


which I believe the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) holds strong views.
In the case of individuals who should have paid tax just after or when it was due, and who find that the amount has piled up and that it is now very large, the Inland Revenue has tried to temper the wind to the shorn lamb by taking in part payment any post-war credit due for 1945–46. I wish to tell the hon. Member and the House that, whether the amount in this case is £54 or £88, only a few pounds of the amount will be taken this year. By that I mean a few pounds, I do not mean £10 or £20. In all the cases that have been brought to my notice, the Inland Revenue have spread the payments over a very long period indeed. They cannot go down the years indefinitely, because no one knows whether, among some of these individuals, we might find a Nuffield or someone else who will presently make considerable sums—

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question which I have raised privately with him before in relation to a much larger sum of tens of thousands of pounds. Has anyone got discretion in these cases to relieve the person concerned from the obligation to pay? As I understood my right hon. Friend previously, he has no discretion of this matter, that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is the only authority and that it has an absolute duty to exact the sum. Is that the case or has my right hon. Friend discretion in this matter to see that these people are excused payment if he feels that they should be? I hope that he has and if he has I hope that he will exercise that discretion.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Legally the amount that is due should be paid, but the Inland Revenue has the authority to temper payment to the circumstances of the individual concerned. For example, as sometimes happens, an ex-Service man may die and his widow may find that the arrears of tax which he would have had to pay had he lived are due from the estate, that she will have to find the money, and that she cannot do so. Cases of that kind which go to the Inland Revenue are treated with the utmost sympathy.
Sometimes, when it is obvious that the money cannot be recovered, the outstanding sum is written off. But, where individuals such as ex-officers—who appear to be the people whom most hon. Members have most in mind—come back into civil life and it is obvious that they have received more income than they have been charged for, they should, like every other citizen, pay their tax due under the law. In such cases, the Inland Revenue quite definitely do not wipe out the amount owing and it would be wrong of them to do so. They do, however, take into account the circumstances at the moment of the individual concerned, and they see to it that the extra imposition upon him in order to clear off the arrears is not such as will cripple him financially and reduce his income below a certain level.
In the case which the hon. Member has mentioned tonight, although the man still owes £54, I can assure the hon. Member that, unless his circumstances change very much for the better, it will take him many years to pay off the arrears. During this year, as I have said, the amount asked of him will be only a few pounds.

Sir D. Robertson: I very much doubt whether the important point which was raised by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has been replied to adequately. As I know the law on this matter, Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, gives the Inland Revenue power to go back for six years if they themselves decide to do so. There is no compulsion on the Board of Inland Revenue to go back for six years or any shorter time. The House must realise that these claims are being deliberately embarked upon in large numbers. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say to me that the figure I have in mind is all wrong. I have never stated any figure, nor has he. That I suggest is the material factor, and it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to try to lead this House into the belief that the Inland Revenue or its Government masters are treating this matter—

Mr. Speaker: That is a speech not a question, and the hon. Gentleman has already made one speech.

Sir D. Robertson: Then, Mr. Speaker, at a later stage, by your leave and by leave of the House, I will ask leave to speak again. So many inaccuracies have


been made in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that this matter cannot stand where it now is.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry if the hon. Member thinks that I am trying to mislead the House. That is the last thing I desire to do. I could, of course, retort that the hon. Member's speech was full of the grossest inaccuracies, but I will not do that.

Sir D. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman cannot do it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: To be frank, I do not want to try. We are all trying to do justice, if we can, to ex-Service men who through no fault of their own find themselves heavily in arrears with Income Tax payments. I wish to deal with that in the most sympathetic way open to me. The facts are that these claims exist. They are not, I think, so numerous as the hon. Member would lead this House to believe; but, even if they are, the principle is just the same. It is obvious that, to some of these people, a tax arrear is an onerous burden. I assure the House that the Inland Revenue does try to spread the burden over as long a period as possible. What I cannot do is to say to the House that the Inland Revenue will wipe the slate clean in all these cases.

Mr. Blackburn: Has the Inland Revenue power to wipe the slate clean?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think not. That would be straining too much the powers it has. What it can do, and what I have indicated that it does do, is to wipe the slate clean in certain cases which should be treated as special cases. But it has no right to, and could not under the law, wipe the slate clean of all the arrears that may be outstanding from all ex-Service men, whoever they may be.

Mr. Speaker: To wipe the slate clean would involve legislation and is therefore out of order on the adjournment.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. I was not trying to raise any point affecting legislation. I was merely trying to suggest that in certain circumstances the Crown might exercise its prerogative, which does not affect legislation, and might not accept payment. I was anxious to avoid raising any matter affecting legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I was not reflecting on anything the hon. Member raised. I merely thought that it might be for the convenience of the House to remind them that "wiping the slate clean" generally would mean legislation, and was therefore out of Order.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think that there is any more I can say. Even if I wind up with this final statement, I shall, I am afraid, repeat what I have already indicated to the House. The Inland Revenue and my right hon. and learned Friend do desire to treat these cases with the utmost sympathy. It is, however, impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend not to ask through the Inland Revenue for payment where it is felt that that payment is not such as to be unfair to the individual concerned. Where cases are brought to the attention of local inspectors of taxes, or to that of the collector, the staff are empowered to treat them with the utmost sympathy. Where payment is asked for, it is, in some cases, spread over an extremely long period.

Sir D. Robertson: How long?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It depends on the case. Where it is quite obvious that payment will never be made, and here I am repeating myself as I am afraid I must, where it is quite obvious that it is impossible to pursue the claim, then the claim is dropped. But where it is felt that the circumstances of the individual, either now or presently, may improve, the claim is kept alive in the expectation that presently that individual will pay what all of us have to pay, that is, our proper taxes under the law. We dislike it, but nevertheless we have to do it. Therefore, I am sorry, but I cannot give the full promise which the hon. Gentleman opposite obviously wants. I feel that we have done our best in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask one question of my right hon. Friend? I think it wilt clarify the position. Is he prepared himself to consider any case which is submitted to him by an hon. Member of this House so that that case may then be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with some kind of recommendation?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, I can say, and I think most hon. Members are aware of it, that cases do come to me almost daily.


I go through them very carefully. I consult the tax office concerned and, once I have the facts, I go through them with the utmost sympathy. We do spread the amount due over a very long period; sometimes, where it seems the best course, the claim is completely wiped out.

Mr. Swingler: Arising from the question put by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) may I ask this question? Could my right hon. Friend say quite definitely if it is a fact that the Commissioners are absolutely bound to press these claims for arrears, unless there are exceptional circumstances, or is it a fact that the Commissioners have the legal entitlement to forget about these claims? I am still not clear whether the Commissioners could disregard these arrears according to the powers given to them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, they ought to be reported. Hon. Members who follow the accounts printed yearly and the deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee will see that, where claims are dropped, either for bankruptcy or because the person has died or some other reason—and there are a variety of reasons why claims are not pursued—these matters have to be reported to the House, and agreed to by the House as part of its normal financial procedure year by year.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am glad, as I think other hon. Members will be, that this evening we have reached the Adjournment at an hour which enables us to have a rather fuller discussion than is customary. The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) for having raised this important topic and to the Financial Secretary for the helpful tone in which he has replied to the points put to him. This is an entirely non-party matter. It is a question of administration or, as the Financial Secretary has made clear, of the lack of it. The trouble is in the machinery for the collection of taxes.
The cases I was going to submit to the right hon Gentleman outrun in terms of longevity those raised by the hon. Member for Streatham and the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp). There

were cases for 1939–40 and 1940–41 where there were no such complications as marriage, or the birth of children, or the wife going out to work, but where a man, demobilised in 1945, received, in December, 1946, claims for those two financial years, 1939–40 and 1940–41 amounting to £85. It is remarkable how the amounts are similar. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, what I believe is legally described in civil liabilities as the Statute of Limitations operated in these cases. From what he has said, I understand it does. These claims must therefore fall and so there is one question satisfactorily disposed of.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know the details of the cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member but he knows as well as I do, and if he does not the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) who is a lawyer, will inform him, that it is possible to keep claims alive by making application. It is possible that some application was made in an intermediate year, which means that the period of six years under the Statute of Limitations has not yet run out.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That may or may not be so, but no application was made to the individual. What passed between the Treasury and the Naval Paymaster—for these are naval cases—I do not know, but the first the individual knew of it was in the month of December, 1946. As the right hon. Gentleman knows I put some questions to him on this matter, and I followed them up with a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, where it seemed to me that the fault might lie, and that there might have been delay in the making up of the man's liabilities by the Naval Paymaster. The Financial Secretary will have noticed that the reply which I received last week from the Admiralty was that the average delay in transferring accounts from the Navy to the Board of Inland Revenue was two months. Therefore, I think one is reasonably entitled to ask what has happened since 1939–40 and 1940–41 and since October, 1945, to cause this long delay in the claim being made from the Departmental Claims Branch, which in this case is situated at Cardiff.
The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is due to pressure of work and


shortage of staff, and so on. That the House will understand and appreciate. But the fact remains, as was stated by the hon. Member for Streatham, that it is no fault of the men concerned that this delay has taken place. Therefore, for the shorn lambs, as the Financial Secretary described them, the shearing is none the less unpleasant because it has been delayed all this time. In fact, it is a far more painful procedure than if the lamb had been less severely shorn at regular periods of time. Nor, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, is it any comfort to the man to be told that these payments are to be spread over a long time ahead. That is a most gloomy and dismal outlook for anybody to regard. To be told, "As a result of your war service you are £85 or £88 in arrears, but we are going to be merciful and ten years may elapse before you clear off this liability," would weigh very heavily upon my spirit.
The right hon. Gentleman included in his speech a reference to post-war credits. I do not think that the views I hold about post-war credits are unreasonable. I was in the House of Commons when Sir Kingsley Wood introduced the post-war credit system and many of us thought that it would result in a nest-egg for the Service man when he came home. It was largely on that basis that the post-war credits proposals were accepted. Even then, some of us raised the question whether the post-war credits might not be used as a set-off against Income Tax liability. Sir Kingsley Wood denied that that was his intention.
I know that one Parliament cannot bind another and that new Governments can make entirely fresh arrangements, but that would be a complete breach of the whole spirit of the post-war credits system. A man may have come home hoping to find some post-war credit available for the holiday he was hoping to have or for a little knick-knack that he wanted to buy for the house, but in fact he finds that the credit is to be set off against one of these Income Tax demands. We can ask the Government to have a sense of proportion in this matter. The Government have just writen off £58 million for what the previous Secretary of State for War called the merry game of the black market in

Germany. They wrote that off in a moment, almost laughed it off, when the subject was raised in this House. Now we are told that all these miserable sums of £50 or £80, so far from being written off have to be spread over a period of years.
I appeal to the Financial Secretary, in the terms used by his hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton a few moments ago. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman was a gallant officer in the first war. We know that he had a distinguished record. We believe that he cannot approve of this system. I am sure he does not approve of it. He cannot agree with such a millstone being placed round the necks of our returned fighting men about something which is in no sense their fault. I hope that this useful little Debate on this early Adjournment, which has come so fortunately at this hour, will not only cause a more merciful attitude in the Departmental Claims Branch but will result in the right hon. Gentleman approaching his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer once again on this matter.
The will of the House of Commons is unmistakable in this matter. If there were crowded benches tonight the view would be just the same; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman would not have had such an easy passage as he had just now. Let him convey to his right hon. and learned Friend our views. The House of Commons must assert itself over the Executive in this matter. We private Members are the rulers, after all, when we like to assert ourselves. Although the right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic in his attitude, and we are grateful to him for that, I am quite sure that the last has not been heard on this issue.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: rose—

8.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for giving way. I have been trying to extract the very last possible crumb of comfort I could from the statement made by the Financial Secretary. I must confess that when what he has said is all boiled down to its essentials, he has not made a very great concession. He has said that if Members of Parliament will write to him


and bring hard cases to his attention he will see that those cases are properly investigated. Those of us who have had dealings with my right hon. Friend know that he always goes to the utmost pains to deal with any cases which are brought to his notice. When he repeats that assurance tonight, he is not telling us anything new. He also pointed out that in those hard cases where the ex-Service man dies and his widow is left in difficult circumstances, the Department will not press the claim. He has said that he will make representations, or in particular cases that are brought to his notice, will give instructions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The question is whether the Commissioners are bound to accept his advice or his instructions in the matter. If they insist upon collecting the tax we are no better off than we were before my right hon. Friend gave the House his assurance.
Almost all these cases affect men who have had long service in the recent war. They are almost entirely men who came into the Forces in 1939 and 1940. By virtue of their long service many of them reached a very much higher rank at the end of the war than they had at the beginning. By reason of that higher rank they frequently suffered a considerable diminution in their income when they went into civilian life, their second. They suffered their first diminution when they went into the Army in 1939 from a good job, and became privates, or were called up by reason of their Territorial Army obligations. Those considerations ought to be in the mind of my right hon. Friend when he is looking into this matter.
The concession that he has announced that he is willing to spread the liability over a number of years has been rightly described by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) as no concession at all. It savours to me of cat-and-mouse tactics. The men are to have this threat hanging over their heads indefinitely. Rather than that they should find themselves in this unfortunate position it would be very much simpler for my right hon. Friend to make the concession for which we are asking. He would not suffer any undesirable repercussions afterwards if he did so.

No one would reproach him for it subsequently. We have the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness that it would not be thrown up against him on that side and it certainly would not be thrown up against my right hon. Friend on this side of the House. He has the opportunity to make a very useful concession. If he cannot pin himself down to anything definite tonight I hope that he will find it possible to do something about this matter in the near future.

8.8. p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is clear that the House is unwilling to leave the matter exactly where it stands. Admittedly, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can go no further tonight than he has gone, but part of the purpose of the Debate is to urge upon the Minister, who is not the finally responsible Minister, the duty of taking up the matter again with his right hon. and learned Friend and discussing it further. It is true that from time to time, owing to the working of the machine, demands are made upon individuals which they feel are an intolerable burden and would not have been made if the machine were working with a humane discretion.
When I was a director of public relations, I had a staff officer and other officers brought up to town to broadcast on the Battle of Britain or from a submarine. They came from some active and perilous position, on active service. When the officer broadcast, the Treasury required of him all the money that he had received from the B.B.C. They said that he was paid to fight for the whole 24 hours and seven days a week and that if he did anything else, the money for it had to come to the Treasury. It took years before even the slightest concession could be made, but it was made, and without any injury to the principles of public finance. That is one example.
There is another and more bitter one. In the case of my young brother, who was killed on 28th June, 1915, at Gallipoli, my father received two messages, one of sympathy from the King on the death of his son, and the next from the Treasury saying, "Your son was paid to fight to 31st June and he has only fought to 28th June. We, therefore, demand the balance of the pay which was given him to fight until the 31st June." That kind of demand is still being made.

Mr. Blackburn: It is not as bad as that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes. I know a highly respected Member of this House, with whom I was discussing that particular matter on the Front Bench not more than a few minutes ago. He had an exactly similar demand made upon him.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the 1914–18 war?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, in respect of the last war. This seems rather trivial, but the bitterness engendered is beyond all reckoning. The case of my own brother I know very well. Whatever concession has been made since, that case remains as a bitter memory. Arising out of the last war, I have had a case, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have had cases, of a school teacher who is now setting up his house again. He was mobilised in 1940 and he now finds that some sums he was due to pay, I think in respect of superannuation, were not paid. They have accumulated to what for him is a relatively large figure. He is now faced with the prospect of selling up his furniture in order to meet those sums. Nor is it any real tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb, to use the somewhat stretched phrase which the Financial Secretary used, to say, "We will only confiscate your post-war credits." In fact, that is not tempering the wind to the shorn lamb: it is going over the shorn lamb with a safety razor after the shears have been pretty thoroughly run over its skin. That, of course, is only a figure of speech: one does not usually shear lambs. When it gets going, the machine will shear lambs, and indeed, it will run a razor over them until it is sure that it has got the skin absolutely clean.
The Financial Secretary said that it is the duty of the Treasury, when it is thought that the circumstances of the person, now or presently, may improve, to keep the claim alive. In civil life, in the case of relief in the form of assistance given in trade disputes, one of the bitterest resentments was that, years after, those claims were being collected. People who had received assistance of one kind or another found that claims were collected years afterwards and payment was accepted by instalments. That caused great bitterness. Relief and loan has been abolished by the will of the House on the very ground that to keep the claims

alive was the sort of thing that roused resentment and bitterness in a man's heart and actually diminished his power to work. The House there, and in other instances, introduced the principle of what is called "disregard." There is a disregard of certain sums. Quite considerable disregards are now allowed in the case of assistance. They have been given by general good will.
I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that if a set of these figures came before the Public Accounts Committee, it would not prove itself unduly harsh in its review of those sums. From the mere accounting point of view, the Financial Secretary has said that in the case of the officer mentioned—a man who first owed £84—his post-war credit was swept away and now he owes only £54. The Financial Secretary says that it will be many years before the sum is finally collected. I suggest that from the mere business point of view the book-keeping involved in those long-maintained claims is in itself a financial disadvantage.
This is one of the cases where the House may justly press the Minister to represent to his chief that uneasiness is felt here, and that this is the sort of thing which will come up again. Discretion could be given to forgive sums up to, let us say, a ceiling of £50 or £100, if there were not involved some principle that the financial authorities must needs look for a possible Nuffield, that is to say, that these men may eventually become very rich and be able to repay far larger sums. While we are waiting for one Nuffield, 50,000 ordinary people are kept on the rack. I suggest that if the principle of disregard which has been introduced into civil life could be introduced in the matter of these military debts, and others due to circumstances arising out of the war, it might easily prove a great alleviation of the burden of bookkeeping upon the staffs.
Staffs of Government Departments tend to keep things alive for a very long time. I remember a friend of mine receiving a demand for a tithe charge amounting to 1d. I sent it, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman indicating that probably the stamps on the demand would amount before very long to far more than the sum total of the tithe charge. Yet the machine keeps the thing alive. It pursues this


claim. It says, "This man owes me a penny and I will extract this penny if it costs me £100 to do so." There are certain cases in which that is right. But in these cases of persons who in the desperate days of 1940 were mobilised, no doubt they received notifications of statements of one kind or another, and either disregarded them altogether or indignantly sent them back, saying that they were really too busy defending the country to be bothered with things like that, and that disposed of the matter from the men's minds and wiped it out of their minds altogether. But not so with the machine. The machine keeps the matter going and says, "Here is a man who owes us something and has done nothing about it; it is very reprehensible, and if such practices were to spread, the financial stability of the country would be endangered."
Let us hope that 1940 will not come again, or that, if it does come again, it will be met with the same heroism as it was then. Let us hope that, if it does, the State may disregard this business of meticulous accounting to the extent that

a certain number of young men have run up arrears of £50 or £80 of indebtedness to the State, and that the State will "call it a day" and will pass a sponge over these figures. Let us hope that the State will say that there are certain things which are repaid in other ways than by cash, that this debt has been paid and that the best thing that the State can do about it is to recognise it as discharged and give to the person in question a receipt, saying, "Rather does the State owe this man something than that the State is owed something by this man."

Sir D. Robertson: May 1, by leave of the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If leave is refused, the hon. Gentleman cannot speak again. Does the House grant leave?

An Hon. Member: No.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Eight o'Clock.